Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10

< July 9

July 11 >

July 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2011

List of countries

• List of countries → List of sovereign states (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Change redirect into a dab page listing List of sovereign states and Lists of countries and territories, and any other likely targets, such as List of lists of national institutions and symbols. There has been some instability of this redirect with several attempts to point it at Lists of countries and territories or turn it into a dab page. There are several lists of countries with organisations counting countries differently. When someone is putting in a search for "lists of countries" it is likely they are looking for the lists of those organisations, such as United Nations, FIFA, IANA. List of sovereign states doesn't appear to be an official list. It has its own criteria for inclusion. Added to which a country is not always a sovereign state SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone was searching for lists of countries wouldn't they search through the redirect Lists of countries? I would assume anyone searching for a singular is looking for a specific list, which the one of sovereign states is probably the most relevant. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the sovereign states the most relevant in your view? It doesn't appear to be an official list, and is not set up to be a list of countries, but of sovereign states. And looking at the talkpage history, the article's contents and inclusion criteria have been in dispute for some time. The list appears to be insecure and dubious. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The most common meaning of "country" in English is "sovereign state". Indeed, in most dialects of English, "countries of the world" means just and only "sovereign states of the world". One looks on a list of countries for France, Germany, Congo, Brazil, Vietnam, etc., not for any other thing. In most English atlases, the "Countries of the World" list is exactly a list of sovereign states. Therefore, "List of countries" should be exactly what it is right now--a redirect to List of sovereign states and not anything else. Indeed, to have anything other than a list of sovereign states at List of countries would be confusing and a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. What else can a country be other than a sovereign state? --Taivo (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Disambiguate. "Country" is not always synonymous with "sovereign state" - see for example Countries of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of the Netherlands. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, only a small minority of English speakers think that "country" means anything other than "sovereign state". --Taivo (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. The phrase has a variety of meanings, and I could cite piles of sources that use the word "country" to designate dependent territories, overseas countries and constituent countries, and by no means do they constitute a "small minority". United Nations lists that Silk alludes to are just one of many. The list was moved to List of sovereign states for a reason. Nightw 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Leave it as is. It's the most fitting list we have and is therefore, most likely, the most common target of a search. There's a hatnote on the top of the page that redirects readers to Lists of countries and territories. Nightw 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• The article List of countries should be a list of countries, per WP:TITLE. The policy Deciding on an article title begins “Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by.” It is not our place to decide what is the most common meaning of a word. If reliable sources describe somewhere as a country, that place should be included on a list of countries. If editors refuse to allow the article to be based on a fundimental Wikipedia policy and choose instead to use their own POV, then List of countries should be a disambiguation page (as a poor second choice). What it should not be is a redirect to List of sovereign states. They are not synonymous. Daicaregos (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, Daicaregos, it's not just a question of "what reliable sources say". There are multiple cases where one set of sources might say X and another set of equally reliable sources says Y. We have to make decisions in Wikipedia all the time. In this case, when one looks at reliable English language atlases, their "list of sovereign states" is most commonly called "Countries of the World" without reference to places that are not sovereign, like Scotland, etc. The redirect at List of countries should remain as a redirect to List of sovereign states since that is the most common usage in English atlases and what most English speakers are likely to be seeking. --Taivo (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is not 'List of things Taivo someone saw in his atlas'. It is 'List of countries'. The policy reliable sources begins: “Wikipedia articles should be based on all reliable, published sources; and, majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).” I can provide you with dozens of reliable sources defining, calling or referring to countries that are not on 'List of sovereign states'. Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you keep civil, Daicaregos. And, in this case, atlases are one of the most common reliable sources. I'm looking at three atlases--two by Rand McNally and one by Hammond. All three use the term "country" to refer to sovereign states and not to subordinate entities. That's one of the most reliable ways we judge WP:COMMONNAME. As others have pointed out already here, nine out of ten readers are looking for sovereign states when they search for "countries of the world" and there are sufficient hatnotes for the few that are looking for a more obscure meaning of "country". --Taivo (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. Please advise where I have not been civil. I note your reference to atlases as one of the most common reliable sources. I refer you back to the policy reliable sources which states articles should be based on all reliable, published sources. Please explain why you would choose to ignore that policy. I also note that no-one here has provided any evidence for the claim that nine out of ten readers are looking for sovereign states when they search for "countries of the world". Daicaregos (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody has been incivil. I'm interested to know what atlases you were looking at, Taivo...? Just from looking online, Rand McNally does not use that definition in its lists. [1][2][3][4] Nightw 12:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I take the "List of things Taivo saw in his atlas" as incivil. Keep the personal epithets out of this. Nightw, for example, Rand McNally Portrait World Atlas, 1998, pg. iv, "Political maps...emphasize countries and other political units over topography"; pg. 1, "Capitals: country, dependency"; pg. I-1, "Each name is followed by the name of the country...where it is located", "Country names and names of features that extend beyond the boundaries of one country...", "Country designations follow the names of all other places in the index.", etc. It is crystal clear that "country" means "sovereign state" because all places in the UK, no matter which so-called "country" they are found in, are listed as being in the "UK". There is not always a single list, but when reading the text, it's clear that "country" means sovereign state almost universally in atlases. Hammond Centennial World Atlas, 1999, tends to interchange "nation" and "country" as at pg. 10, "The living standards of less than two dozen highly industrialized nations....Though the developed countries...", but tends to used "country" in labels of tables as on pg. 10, "Worker Comparisons of Selected Countries" and "country" in describing the index, as on pg. 106, "Every name is followed by the country or area to which it belongs. Except for cities, towns, countries and cultural areas...." As with Rand McNally, the use of "country" unambiguously refers to "sovereign state" because all places in the UK are labelled as "UK". Rand McNally Deluxe Illustrated Atlas fo the World, 1991, also interchanges "nation" and "country" as at pg. A-2, "World Nations: This table gives the area, population...and location of every country in the world". On pg. A-10 it has tables labelled, "Largest Countries: Population", "Largest Countries: Area", "Smallest Countries: Population", "Smallest Countries: Area" and the index is also described on pg. A-12, "Each city name is followed by the English name of its country. Names in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada are further distinguished by the name of the state, region, or province in which they are located." That should sufficiently illustrated the exclusive usage of "country" to refer to "sovereign state" and not to any smaller units. All three of my atlases are in agreement. --Taivo (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nightw, there is a discussion going on right now at the Reliable Sources Talk Page about whether you can call something a reliable source if you haven't actually read it ;) All of your links are to Google Books entries and not to actual books so they are pretty worthless to answer this question without holding the book or at least being able to see all the pages of the book and read the actual comments that describe things like indexes, tables of "largest"/"smallest", etc. --Taivo (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to you, as you used my name, so I used yours. I had no intention of causing offence and have struck out your name. Please accept my apologies. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant how many atlases confuse sovereign states and countries. Or, indeed, if they have chosen to use just one of the word's meanings. The fact is that reliable source requires us to base articles on all reliable, published sources. I ask again: please explain why you would choose to ignore that policy. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Daiucaregos, you don't seem to understand the relationship of WP:RS to the issue you have presented here. At Wikipedia, our goal is usability as well as reliability. Usability requires us to use the names for things that our readers are seeking. Atlases are reliable sources for geographic terms and names as they guide us to the terms that our readers will be using to refer to entities. Just because an academic or Scots politician uses "country" in a meaning other than "sovereign state" does not make it a term that the majority of our readers will be using to look for the list of sovereign states. The atlases that I've cited show conclusively that "country" is uniformly used as the term for sovereign states. Scotland, et al., in the atlases I've cited, are called "provinces" or "dependencies" or "regions", not "countries". "Country" is reserved exclusively for sovereign states. So we have to consider usability as a primary factor in motivating us to have a redirect to List of sovereign states at List of countries because that is what our readers will be looking for. WP:RS isn't as relevant to this issue. It is relevant when we are dealing with article content, of course, but when we are dealing with moving readers through our encyclopedia with the least amount of fuss and bother on their part, it is much less relevant because the majority of them are not specialists or nationalists. The majority of our readers will not be looking for dependencies when they are looking for "Countries of the world", they will be looking for sovereign states, because that is the common meaning of the term for the majority of English speakers. Our average reader, in coming to "List of countries" just wants to find a list of the countries of the world, not a disambiguation page filled with subtleties that he or she may or may not comprehend. "What the heck? I just wanted a list of the countries of the world. What is all this stuff? Where do I need to go?" It is our responsibility to respond to the needs of the majority of our readers and take them where they need to go when they ask the simple question, "What are the countries of the world?" --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence for your assertions, or they are merely your opinion. It is quite ridiculous to assert that WP:RS isn't as relevant to this issue. WP:RS is a core constituent of Wikipedia's five pillars (WP:NPOV). Daicaregos (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Now you are lost, Daiceregos. The very first sentence of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on...". Articles, not redirects, not disambiguation pages, not user interface or usability issues, but articles. Your issue here is not an article, it is not about content, it is not about sources. It is about navigation only. Navigation does not fall under the purview of WP:RS. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1.) Did you not manage to find any evidence to substantiate your opinion? Can't say I'm surprised tbh. 2.) Obviously, you missed my argument - that my first choice for the article List of countries is that it should be a list of countries, per WP:TITLE. The policy Deciding on an article title begins "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." It is not our place to decide what is the most common meaning of a word. If reliable sources describe somewhere as a country, that place should be included on a list of countries. As a poor second choice List of countries should be a disambiguation page (if editors refuse to allow the article to be based on a fundimental Wikipedia policy and choose instead to use their own POV). What it should not be is a redirect to List of sovereign states. They are not synonymous. 3.) You will note that WP:RS is an integral part of WP:TITLE. Your "Navigation does not fall under the purview of WP:RS" argument is, therefore, irrelevant. 4.) Now look, mate. You invoke incivility (concerning use of your username), where others saw none, then contrive to misspell my name twice. Once, is careless. Twice, well, most idiots are capable of cut 'n paste. Pack it in. Daicaregos (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

At this point, Daicaregos, your point of view on this issue is failing as most editors are not being swayed by your rhetoric. I stand by the comments I have made. Your POV that the list of sovereign states should actually be labelled "List of countries" fails on the very issue that you are arguing strongly for--disambiguation. "List of countries" fails as an article title because, despite the fact that the majority of English speakers consider "list of countries" and "list of sovereign states" to be identical, there is a large enough group of editors who strongly oppose that position that a compromise was warranted. The compromise is the current status quo. Since you were not involved in any of the "country/state" discussions, you would not recognize some of the editors both here and at Talk:List of sovereign states who have taken part in those discussions. And your opinion that WP:RS is the primary driver for navigation issues is still wrong. I don't know your history at Wikipedia, but if you've been involved in many of these naming issues, you should know that usability trumps WP:RS almost all the time where there is a question or a conflict between them. Article content is the domain of WP:RS, not navigation or user friendliness. --Taivo (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

A source defining countries would be great. Our Country article is remarkably undersourced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few to be getting on with: Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. More recently, Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, called Scotland a country. Daicaregos (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Those don't define countries, they just have sources calling suchandsuch a country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, they don't. What led you to believe they would? They are reliable sources that define, call or refer to countries that are not on 'List of sovereign states', are they not? Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You said "I can provide you with dozens of reliable sources defining, calling or referring to countries", so I was hoping for sources that define countries. Naming something a country does not define countries. I feel uncomfortable using words on the encyclopaedia that I can not define, let alone basing a list on them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood. What I said was: ”I can provide you with dozens of reliable sources defining, calling or referring to countries that are not on 'List of sovereign states'.”, And I did. Quoting only part of that sentence changed its context. Daicaregos (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you then clarify what you meant when you included the word defining in that sentence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed change, and keep as is. If someone types "List of countries" then nine times out of ten, they will be looking for the information presented at List of sovereign states. For the one out of ten looking for something else, there are enough hatnotes and explanatory texts at List of sovereign states to get them where they want to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose proposed change. See my opening comment at Talk:List of sovereign states#List of countries. List of sovereign states is the primary topic for List of countries, There is a hatnote at List of sovereign states to Lists of countries and territories which is basically a very large dab page for list of countries, and in my opinion we do not need another dab page at List of countries, when there is a clear primary meaning which the page already redirects. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I would echo PBS and Amakuru here. List of sovereign states is clearly the primary topic here, but if people want something else the hatnote there will take them where they want to go. Disambiguating adds nothing but an extra step for the majority of readers who want list of sovereign states. The argument advanced above that this redirect has to be turned into an indiscriminate list of entities that someone at some point has described as a "country" (in any sense of the word) in any source deemed reliable has been discussed and found wanting before, and has not improved in the meantime. Such an article is patently unworkable, given the varying and contradictory definitions of the word "country". The status quo reflects what is by far the most likely page desired by a reader who types "list of countries" into the search box. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lists of countries and territories is already essentially nothing more than a disambiguation page so I really don't see any point in creating a third article. Since List of sovereign states is the primary topic of List of countries it should be redirected to and appropriate hatnotes used. I really can't see someone typing List of countries into the searchbox expecting to end up at List of FIFA country codes or List of Internet top-level domains. TDL (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

May I ask a question? Is the proposed move being made from List of Countries to List of Sovereign states in order to circumnavigate the fact that "countries" such as England, Wales and Scotland are commonly as well as verifiably called countries? I read somewhere above a user stating that most people when looking for a list of counrties would in fact be looking for sovereign countries. I beg to differ, but then that is only my opinion. If there are verifiable sources that say most people are looking for sovereign states, rather than what it says on the tin, countries, I would be interested in hearing the proof. The bottom line is, unless there is absolute proof that when people look up List of Countries and are confused to see non-sovereign countries included then I don't see a problem with the current title. Carson101 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Carson101, this is not a request for move. There is currently a list List of sovereign states. List of countries is a redirect there. This proposal is to turn List of countries into a disambiguation page. Only among some speakers of English in the United Kingdom does "country" mean anything other than "sovereign state". Throughout the U.S. and other English-speaking countries, "country" primarily means "sovereign state" and the term "list of countries" means a "list of sovereign states". The proof is that throughout English atlases, that is the only usage for "country". Since this is not an issue of article content, but an issue only of navigation, then WP:RS does not apply. --Taivo (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is quite proper to discuss WP:RS here. If fact, WP:RFD says "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia." Daicaregos (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

But that is not what you are trying to do here, Daicaregos. You are not trying to turn this into a "fleshed-out encyclopedia article". You are simply trying to turn a redirect into another disambiguation page that competes with other, identical, disambiguation pages and confuses the great majority of readers who simply want List of sovereign states as the answer to their question, "What are the countries of the world?" --Taivo (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you have provided no evidence for any of your claims. And secondly, as I said, List of countries should be a list of countries, per WP:TITLE. The policy Deciding on an article title begins "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." It is not our place to decide what is the most common meaning of a word. If reliable sources describe somewhere as a country, that place should be included on a list of countries. If editors refuse to allow the article to be based on a fundimental Wikipedia policy and choose instead to use their own POV, then List of countries should be a disambiguation page (as a poor second choice). What it should not be is a redirect to List of sovereign states. They are not synonymous. Daicaregos (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos, I have provided evidence that the two major producers of English language atlases (Hammond and Rand McNally) uniformly use "country" to refer to sovereign states, not to dependent territories or provinces. That is quite sufficient as evidence that the most common meaning of "list of countries" is "list of sovereign states". And the disambiguation page you offer is a poor duplicate of Lists of countries and territories. You simply have not proven that a "list of countries" would be anything useful to our readers other than a list of sovereign states with Scotland and Wales. When the majority of our readers are looking for List of sovereign states when they are trying to answer the simple question, "What are the countries of the world?", you have given no valid reason to inconvenience them with a list that they do not want (that includes non-sovereign provinces and dependencies) and will give them the wrong answer or a disambiguation page that might direct them to a list they do not want because you have confused them with an alternate, and decidedly minority, meaning of "country". All you have done is push your interpretation of Wikipedia policy without addressing the far more important issue of usability for our readers. --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Taivo, I should have made it clear. The evidence you have not provided is for your claim that the great majority of readers want List of sovereign states when they enter List of countries. Re "You simply have not proven that a "list of countries" would be anything useful to our readers other than a list of sovereign states with Scotland and Wales." If those were the only countries not to be on List of sovereign states it would be useful to add them because it would be a List of countries, and would be as useful and informative as any other complete Wikipedia list.Daicaregos (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I found this RfD because I was looking for List of sovereign states, because I wanted to see the current status of South Sudan, but couldn't remember the exact name of the article, so I typed in "List of countries" instead. This page is most useful as a redirect to List of sovereign states - no-one would type in "List of countries" expecting to find those things on the disambiguation page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment - re. "no-one" - just because you assume that the words "country" and "sovereign state" are exact synonyms does not mean that every other person on the planet concurs with you. In fact one very significant group of people does not share your opinion: people who write and edit respected English language dictionaries. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mais ous!, if a young person walked up to you on the street and asked you, "What are the countries of the world?", what would you honestly answer? If your answer is "Scotland, England, Wales, France, Germany...", then you may have satisfied your own inner POV about the status of these provinces, but have you actually answered the question? Would you actually expect that young person to go back to school and use that on a geography test? If so, then you are cruel because you know that it will be the wrong answer and that poor young person will fail the question. When dealing with navigation issues here in Wikipedia, it is crucial to understand how many school kids come here for answers to their questions and turning List of countries of the world into a confusing page for dilettantes in service of an obscure and uncommon POV is doing them a disservice that is the antithesis of the Wikipedia mission. There are other places to push the "Scotland is a country" POV in the text of articles, but not in the primary navigation system. You claim that dictionary writers don't use "country" in the sense of "sovereign state", but you are wrong. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has as the first definition of "country", "nation or state", and the first definition of "nation" is "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government, a country" while the second definition of "nation" is "government of a sovereign state". So there you have fairly solid dictionary evidence that the primary meaning of "country" in English (outside the U.K. at least) is "sovereign state". --Taivo (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean inside the U.S. at least. Nightw 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you implying that a British school child, when asked "What are the countries of the world?" would include Scotland and Wales as separate entities? I serious doubt that. --Taivo (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, no, I was calling you on your use of an American English dictionary as "dictionary evidence" of the English language everywhere outside the UK. As though there is only the U.S. and the UK. Most commonwealth countries have their own lexicons, or follow the British standards. Nightw 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, I seriously doubt you fully understand the position in the UK. Many children (and indeed adults) in many parts of the UK would indeed state, unprompted, that of course Scotland, England and Wales are separate countries. That is, simply, a fact. It is not a "POV" to state that - it is the position as it is. The countries have national sporting teams and play each other in international competitions, as one obvious example - they also, increasingly evidently, have quite distinct governments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

To add my two penn'orth. Sovereign states and countries ARE different things, politically. I would also say that many readers for whom English is not their first language would type "country" instead of "sovereign state". I don't think that is important for the purposes of navigation. Yes, if I wanted to find lists of countries (sovereign states, political entities etc) then I would probably type "lists" instead of "list", but it seems to me you are all perfect typists and could not possibly make a slip to type an extra S by mistake, or being a foreign reader, think that "list" had to agree in number with "country" and so mistakenly pluralise it. I am not saying it is right to do so, I am saying, the purpose of a redirect is to try to get people to where they want to be: assume maximum intelligence and minimum knowledge. So "List of countries" seems quite a reasonable redirect to me, and the faffing about whether they are sovereign states etc leave to the pedants, direct it SOMEWHERE useful. Is the United Arab Emirates a sovereign state? It is a collection of states, none of which have a sovereign, though all have emirs. For the pedantic point, the United States is not a sovereign state, since it doesn't have a sovereign and is made up of fifty states. These technical points of definition are not the point of RfD, which is to say, IS THIS LINK USEFUL OR HARMFUL TO THE INTELLIGENT USER WHO WANTS TO FIND INFORMATION? I don't know the answer to that, but we are not here to define "country" or "sovereign state", only to decide whether we think the redirect should be changed, kept, deleted, or whatever, to aid a search.

By the way I did not see any incivility in any of the comments above, only vigorous intelligent argument.

"The past is another country. They do things differently there". Opening lines of The Go-Between. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment (Cross posting from Talk:List of sovereign states) There is a POV issue amongst a small number of editors who stridently push a narrow and unyielding view that such-and-such a place (usually located on an archipelago off the north-west coast of France) is a "country" and must not be called anything less ... otherwise THE WORLD WILL END!!! (Struck: 08:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

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

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

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

That way, List of countries would rightly point to an ambigious "list of lists", which includes a link to List of sovereign states. --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Ghmyrtle, 08:30, 13 July 2011 - And their's is one point of view (from which you should not imply that it is not my - personal - point of view). That does not mean that Wikipedia has to be written from that point of view - or even substantially incorporate it. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, not the point of view of British adults and school children alone or even predominately. --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@RA: I agree with you (I think - it's painful to get my head round the various options). I was responding to Taivo, who asked a (presumably) rhetorical question, to which the factual answer is the opposite of that which he assumes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The factual answer is definately 'yes'.

This topic (the wider context) reminds me of the trouble around British Isles. For some, it was quite plainly obvious that there should be issues around use of that term. For others, that point of view was so unexpected that to them it could only be made up. Some of the comments above remind me of the reaction provoked an unexpected point of view during those discussions: that the minority POV had to be resisted entirely. For a large part, the hammer and thongs approach to the issue made by those advocating the minority POV was to blame for that.

In reality, to satisify NPOV we need to integrate minority POVs (while avoiding fringe view) but we cannot allow them to direct the course of the encyclopedia. For that to happen, there needs to be a little more give on both sides of this issue - and a more acceptance of the reality of the dominant POV by those advocating the minority POV - before we will achieve NPOV. --RA (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you didn't answer my question. You asked that rhetorical British school child a different question. You asked, "Are Scotland, Wales, etc. countries?" to which they replied "Yes" because that'sw what they've been taught. But that's not the question I asked them. I asked them, "What are the countries of the world?" That's the question where I seriously believe that they would not include Scotland and Wales in with France, Germany, Vietnam, South Africa, etc. They would include "Britain" or "the United Kingdom" as an equal member of the set "countries of the world", but not Scotland or Wales. That's the key question here--not the meaning of "country" in every sentence in which it occurs, such as "I have a house in the country", but the meaning of "country" in the simple question, "What are the countries of the world". That's the focus we need to keep our minds on, the place that most of our readers want to go when they ask, "What are the countries of the world?" It is List of sovereign states without any further difficulty in reaching that destination. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

RA, I oppose your proposal for the simple reason that "List of sovereign states" is a compromise worked out by both British and non-British editors to avoid the contentious term "country" in the title of this article. Outside the UK, Scotland etc. are not "countries", they are provinces/dependent areas/whatever, but "country" is usually reserved for sovereign states. Therefore, using "sovereign state" as the title of this list is the compromise to avoid the UK problem. And it fails in the aspect of usability. When our readers want the answer to the question, "What are the countries of the world?" they want List of sovereign states. That is the most common meaning of the phrase "Countries of the world". If they want something more than sovereign states, that is what the hatnote is for. But the majority of readers get exactly where they want to be by the redirect at List of countries. --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, not all countries are sovereign states. For example, Greenland and Puerto Rico can both reasonably be called countries but are not sovereign states. In Europe, countries like France, the Netherlands and Denmark are only part of the sovereign states of the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Denmark. Coming as I do from Ireland, a distinction is often made between the sovereign state of Ireland and the country of Ireland, the latter of which includes what is politically Northern Ireland and so part of another sovereign state.

Those pushing the “such-and-such is a country” point of view at all cost do over-state the matter - but the answer is not to deny the matter or to display ignorance of it. Additionally, the article under discussion is List of countries, not List of countries of the world (presumably in contrast to countries located elsewhere in the universe?). --RA (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, irony. I see List of countries of the world (which I expected to be a red link) redirects to Lists of countries and territories. --RA (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But you continue to confuse the question here. The question is, what do the majority of users want when they ask the question, "What are the countries of the world" (which should also redirect to List of sovereign states). No matter what the sovereign states call their dependent parts, the question of what is the normal meaning of the phrase, "countries of the world"? The normal meaning is not sovereign states and territories, but sovereign states only. It is a list of the "top-level nodes" so to speak. That is the common meaning of "countries of the world". --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the fundamental contradiction in the argument of the "Scotland as country" POV (for lack of a better name). The argument begins, "'country' has different meanings". Yes, it does, as in "I have a country house", "I like country music", etc., but specifically in using the peculiarly British expression, "the countries of the UK". So you argue for a broad interpretation of "country" depending on the phrase in which it occurs. No problem. But when discussing the specific phrase "countries of the world", you suddenly become rigid and insist that the only interpretation is the British interpretation even though that is not the most common interpretation of "country" in that phrase. Imagine an American trying to insist that this list cannot be called "states" because then we'd have to list Texas and California. It's the same principle. When combined with "of the world", both the word "countries" and the word "states" takes on a particular meaning in that context of "sovereign states". --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument. Let's for a minute suppose that the context that makes the statement "Scotland is a country" true, is different to the statement "Scotland is a country of the world". This is not List of countries of the world. It is List of countries, on which Scotland, as a country, belongs. Also, re your examples of "country house" and "country music”: while it is true to say "Scotland is a country", it is not true to say "country house is a country", "country music is a country” or even "country is a country" or "music is a country”. This is where the policy reliable sources come in. It begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on all reliable, published sources; and, majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." There is no reason hat notes directing readers to List of sovereign states and List of nations (which should also be 'fleshed out') could not work perfectly well. Daicaregos (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume that when you say "all reliable, published sources", you include the German constitution, which defines Germany as a federation of "countries"? And of course the French sources that refer to their "countries", and the "countries" that form part of them. Doubtless you will also include the Basque Country, the Black Country and the Westcountry. I'm sure we can source that the Past is a country, and if we're including all reliable, published sources, it should be trivial to find references for the Soviet Union, or for East Germany. By focusing on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I believe you display your bias. A list of countries created on the basis you propose must include all of those examples, and I would imagine many more.

The redirect should stay because there is no benefit to the encyclopædia in creating either a disambiguation page or a kitchen-sink list with no coherent basis. There is, on the other hand, benefit in redirecting readers to an article that they are likely to actually want, including a hatnote in case they're looking for something else. Pfainuk talk 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"When combined with 'of the world', both the word 'countries' and the word 'states' takes on a particular meaning in that context of 'sovereign states'." - Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of your argument, in this case, the word "countries" is not combined with "of the world". The article we are talking about is List of countries.

Is it just me or is a wider RfC (leading possible to a MOS entry) this issue merited? --RA (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) I can see this one will run and run. I repeat, we are not here to define what a country or sovereign state is — leave that to the pedants on those target sites. We are here to decide where to redirect it to, if at all, not to define it. In the meantime, another editor and I have fixed up an RfD by being sensible and WP:AGF with each other, and despite the fact I think in that particular case I was wrong, our sensible argument and discussion made WP better. Now, what would you do? Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, you seem to be very self-confident in making statements about what is or is not the case in terms of definitions of a country and the likely response of British School children. As far as I can see this is solely based on your interpretation of two American Atlases; I suggest you might want to be more circumspect in your statements. It is a fact that countries sometimes means sovereign states in some discourse. However it is equally true (and verifiable, ie not based on Taivo's opinion or belief) that country and sovereign state are not synonyms. It seems very simple; if we have a list of countries then it has to include non-soverign states. If on the other hand a search on list of countries takes you to a list of sovereign states, and there is a hat note to explain the simple facts that seems to me a perfectly reasonable position. It also avoids all the nonsense we have seen about the use of brackets, indents, footnotes etc. --Snowded ^TALK 16:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

While Snowded and I may have differing views on what a British young person does or does not mean when they ask, "What are the countries of the world", we are in perfect agreement that List of countries (and List of countries of the world) should redirect here to List of sovereign states with a hatnote that directs the few readers who want something else to Lists of countries and territories. The question here has always been one of a redirect, not one of the final definition of "country". We do our readers the greatest service to move them quickly to the information that they are most likely to want. --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• List of countries may often refer to sovereign states, but redirecting it there would make the definition of "country" seem less ambiguous than it is. Lists of countries and territories is similarly ambiguous. Both should be the same list - i.e. a page with links to the list of sovereign states and other lists of countries and territories as the definition varies - most of List of countries and territoriesLists of countries and territories is not what I had expected to find there and could be split to a separate list linked by "see also": this could be called "lists of countries and territories by topic" or something similar. Peter E. James (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • After I saved this comment, I noticed a typo - the link to List of countries and territories. As it was a blue link, I opened the page and found it redirected to the list of sovereign states, a list which doesn't include territories. Peter E. James (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Peter, it does include territories--in the comments section of each of the sovereign states. But the primary issue is, and always has been, not what is the definition of "country", but how do we quickly move the most readers to the place they want to be with the least amount of headache and the fewest clicks. Most readers of Wikipedia have no idea of the nationalistic subtleties surrounding the word "country" and simply want a list of the sovereign nations of the world when they use the word "country" in the question "What are the countries of the world?" So when they type "list of countries" they don't want to see the mind-blowing complexity of Lists of countries and territories, they just want a list of sovereign entities to finish their homework. --Taivo (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

You've mentioned this several times now. Please provide the evidence for your claim that readers entering "list of countries" actually wanted something else, or stop making it. Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's consider how many pages link to the two articles. List of sovereign states has 113,320 backlinks versus 1,284 for Lists of countries and territories. 100 times as many backlinks for List of sovereign states in the wiki certainly supports the position that it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TDL (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually it doesn't, because you're comparing apples and oranges. What you need to compare are the article space backlinks and page view stats of each each of the individual lists linked to from the directory page "Lists of countries and territories" (which could equally validly be called "List of lists of countries" which highlights the difference very clearly). The list of lists will allways have fewer backlinks as most articles will link directly to the relevant list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos, I never claimed that readers entering List of countries didn't want that. What I have repeatedly said, and you have failed to provide any evidence otherwise, is that the majority of users who want a list of "countries" want a list of "sovereign states" and are using the word "countries" as a more common term for that notion. Getting a list of sovereign states when one types in "list of countries" is not an error--it is the most common meaning of "country" and will be found as the first or second definition of "country" in dictionaries and atlases. I've already demonstrated that. Danlaycock's point is also very valid--that ten times as many wikilinks lead to List of sovereign states as lead to Lists of countries and territories demonstrating that List of sovereign states is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Taivo (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't see you provide anything other than your own opinion to justify the statement that people for searching for countries automatically mean sovereign states. Wikilinks shows more interest in one over the other but that is not the same thing. --Snowded ^TALK 05:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read back through the comments, you will see that most of the editors commenting here take that as a given based on lexical usage of "country" in atlases and dictionaries. I've not seen any evidence that when a person from the UK asks, "What are the countries of the world", they don't mean sovereign states as well. Do Brits actually list Scotland and Wales in lists of "countries of the world"? When they are asked the question, "What are the countries of the UK", of course, they do, but do they actually include Scotland and Wales when the scope of "country" is not the UK, but the world? In the US, the lexical evidence is quite clear that "countries of the world" only includes sovereign states. --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah the objectivity of 4a few wikipedia editors including one who makes absolute statements based on a partial reading of two US Atlases. FYI many Americans I know refer to the UK as England, including major news channels. Is your goal that ignorance of facts should be perpetuated? If so lets change the name of UK article now, and change the entry in this list to England. The simple fact, and you have not shown any evidence against this, is that the definition of country does not include a requirement that it be a sovereign state, although most are. Last time I looked this was an encyclopedia, somewhere where people come to learn and be educated not to perpetuate common, if petty ignorances. --Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Partial reading"? Snowded, I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There's no "partial" about it unless you can prove that I have missed something in them. I don't quote sources unless I hold them in my hand or have full text. I continue to remind you that this is not a discussion about the complete range of meanings of "country", but a simple discussion of a navigation issue. Are the majority of our readers served by directing them quickly and easily to the information that they actually want or forcing them to wander through a complex disambiguation page or using an article that does not actually answer their question. That's all this is about. In the United States at least, "country", when used in the context of "world", means only sovereign states. That's how it's used in the most common American atlases, that's how it's used in the primary definitions in American dictionaries. I've shown this. So when an American, at least, searches for "list of countries" or "countries of the world", they are looking for sovereign states. You still have not addressed the question I have asked many times already, "What does a British school child mean, when they ask the question, 'What are the countries of the world?'" Are British schoolchildren actually taught that Scotland and Wales are separate and equal in a list of "countries of the world"? If not, then the navigation issue here applies to British users as well. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a bit of back and forth going on at List of countries of the world that is probably related to this. Rennell435 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I think Taivo summed it up quite nicely saying "...not what is the definition of "country", but how do we quickly move the most readers to the place they want to be with the least amount of headache and the fewest clicks". (I hope I have not changed the meaning there by quoting it out of context, I think that is EXACTLY the point). Whether a sovereign state needs a sovereign, for example (do we include republics?) or what a state is or so on, is beyond the scope of this RfD. The point is when someone types in "countries of the world" or similar where do we expect to fetch them up? I don't know the answer to that, but it is a different question to saying "how do we categorize all the various ostensibly self-governing entities in the world into lists that fit a nice pedantic pattern"? Is England a country? Is it a sovereign state? It has a sovereign, but perhaps it is just part of the UK. What about Wales. That has never been independent, and is a principality. I don't think those kind of subtleties need to be considered for the purpose of someone searching for a list of countries. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is why this encyclopaedia needs to be accurate: so that differences in terminology are explained correctly and unambiguously. You may call it pedantic, but without the pedants, this project would fail. Sovereign state relates to the state's territorial sovereignty, rather than being dependent upon whether the head of state is a king or queen. England is a country, but not a sovereign state. Wales has been independent, although it isn't now, but it is a country, not a principality. Lastly, a sovereign state is (almost) always a country, but a country is not necessarily a sovereign state, which is why List of countries and List of sovereign states should be separate articles, rather one redirecting to the other. Daicaregos (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Daicaregos, you continue to confuse article content with the simple navigation issue here. "List of countries" is not an encyclopedic entry because it assumes that someone is looking for a list of sovereign states that includes Scotland and Wales as separate entries. It is nothing more than "List of sovereign states plus two dependent territories of the United Kingdom". In other words, it gives Scotland and Wales undue importance. When the majority of our readers are using "country" to mean "sovereign state" in the context of "world", it is critical that we neither confuse our readers, nor direct them to a wrong answer to their question. If a student is coming to Wikipedia to find "countries of the world" and lands on a "List of countries" that includes Scotland and Wales, then we have given that reader incorrect information based on what the reader is looking for. If you insist on some list of sovereign states that includes Scotland and Wales, then find another name for it, but do not confuse the majority of our readers who are looking for sovereign states and not for something that unduly elevates Scotland and Wales as if they were. And your assertion that somehow using "country" as "sovereign state" is "incorrect" is a strictly British POV. In the US, such usage is not incorrect, but is the norm. Do not try to force British usage on Wikipedia. We have to walk a middle ground between British and American usage and not force one on the other. In this case, the better middle ground is to maintain a redirect at List of countries to follow American usage, but if you think it is necessary to have a separate list that includes sovereign states plus Scotland and Wales, then give it another name that does not misdirect Americans. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, I have asked you to provide evidence for your various claims, or stop making them. Other than your atlas examples, you have done neither. Yet another unsubstanciated claim has now been made. Well, to save anyone the bother of checking for themselves, here is how Americans define 'country' (Merriam-Webster describe themselves thus: “For more than 150 years, in print and now online, Merriam-Webster has been America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information.” ):
Definition of COUNTRY
1: an indefinite usually extended expanse of land: region (miles of open country)
2a: the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship
b: a political state or nation or its territory
3a: the people of a state or district: populace
b: jury
c: electorate
4 : rural as distinguished from urban area (prefers the country to the city)
5 : country music
I think we can agree that definition #2 is relevant for our purposes. As we can see, no reference is made to sovereignty or independence. That is because country and sovereign state are not the same thing. Should there be any Americans, or others, who are ignorant of that, this encyclopaedia is a good place for them to be educated. Country and sovereign state should each have separate lists. Daicaregos (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is but one dictionary, Daicaregos, and I have provided references to two other American dictionaries and two American atlas publishers (and if you believe Merriam-Webster's marketing, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you). You have provided but a single reference that still mentions "sovereign state" (the first or second definition of "nation" is usually "state" or "country"). You still are simply pushing a POV where you want a list of sovereign states plus Scotland and Wales, which is completely misleading for users looking for the normal meaning of "countries of the world" which is sovereign states only. And you continue to dodge my question, When British school children are taught the "countries of the world" or ask for the "countries of the world", do they normally include Scotland and Wales or not? --Taivo (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, I see that you are making some statements that are not backed up by hard facts. Let me do the same. When I am abroad, and I've been to many parts of the world over the years, and I'm asked what country I come from I always always say Scotland. I have never been told to try again because they don't believe that Scotland is a country. Anyone saying that it is POV to say that they are countries suitable for a list of countries article should look at their own POV. I thought this website was based on verifiable facts and if people don't accept that then I would ask them to change the the rules of wikipedia. Carson101 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps they don't correct you because they know where you mean and are being polite? When I've been in groups of British and non-British people and the British people have insisted on England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland instead of Britain or the UK, I've found that most non-British people tend to just privately (or not-so-privately) roll their eyes and let you get on with it. They're not necessarily agreeing with you that Scotland is a country - just recognising that the British have their foibles.

We should be basing the site on verifiable fact, right, but we also need to have some kind of integrity in our lists. A list needs to be based on a single definition. If it doesn't have one, but rather lists any entitiy that meets any of the several definitions of a word that means different things to different people, there is no point in having the list. Chipmunkdavis' point below is a good one: on the basis that is argued here both Mahatma Gandhi and Pocahontas do belong on a list of Indians.

In other words, a list has to have inclusion criteria: a means of defining what belongs in and what doesn't. And there's no reason whatsoever why those inclusion criteria have to be placed in the page title. If there were, many of our list titles would be so long as to be totally unmanageable (indeed, we would in many cases be required to make pages that you couldn't link to because Mediawiki only allows wikilinks of a certain length). That's what the lede is for.

I note that I do see a very clear POV in having a list that implies that England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are or should be considered to be of equivalent status to sovereign states, which is what some are calling for here. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are parts of the United Kingdom. So that's how Wikipedia should treat them.

The most sensible approach is what we do in this case. Redirect to the definition that most people are likely to be looking for. Put a hatnote at the top for those that want something else. That way everyone can find what they want without any problem. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. My growing concern with List_of_sovereign_states is that it is substantially a copy of Member states of the United Nations with some extra territories added, such as Northern Cyprus. The criteria for deciding the extra territories is dubious as it doesn't appear to be based on any official list, but on personal interpretation of complex laws and definitions - which is against WP:OR. I am wondering if this redirect discussion is the right one, and if the discussion should be if List_of_sovereign_states is an appropriate list or if it should be deleted. Wikipedians should not be arguing/debating/deciding what constitutes a country or a sovereign state - we should be reporting what reliable sources have determined, and indicate the alternative lists rather than try to present one list as "primary". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the place for that discussion. --Taivo (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If there are multiple definitions for the word country, why is it important that we have a list of things from multiple definitions? To me that seems inherently wrong. It would be like creating a List of famous Indians and including both Mahatma Ghandi and Pocahontas. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, with List of dependent territories. Although the majority of countries are sovereign states, there are a small minority that aren't sovereign states. These dependent territories often appears as their own entries on lists of countries. Peter Geatings (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

AXML

• AXML → XML (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete: "AXML" is not even mentioned in XML. a3_nm (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, and I've been writing XML parsers for over ten years now, which by the way go like shit off a shovel compared to most freely available implementations. AXML is probably some arbitrary jargon word, like JXML or TXML or whatever other flavour of XML you fancy, and I would say delete as harmful. With my usual criterion, does this help or hurt the intelligent but ignorant reader wanting to find out about something? That reader will, not finding AXML, type XML and lo and behold get XML. If he actuallx wanted to find out about axles, and mistyped, he is going to end up in a completely strange world of XML when he just wanted to know about axles, or Axl Rose, or whatever. So I think for the purposes of search, which is what we are here for, does it help or hinder a search? I would say it hinders, and for that reason (and no other) should be deleted.

It kind of reminds me, about twenty years ago I wrote a spelling checker for VAX computers, as a bit of fun. At that time, WordPerfect and Microsoft and IBM and Borland were all boasting how many words they had in their dictionaries. I realised, after a bit, that the way to make a spelling checker work is to have fewer words in your dictionary. People don't want a false positive of "En" being accepted just because it is a printer's unit of measure and you can use it in Scrabble, they probably meant to type "An" or "In" or "On" (unless they are printers, but they are the worst spellers anyway). So to cut words out actually makes it more valuable; similarly, to cut out redirects to unlikely topics makes the search work better. That is my only criterion. And so if others say it does no harm to keep it, I will agree with that, but I do tend to try similar search terms and see what I get when I type them. As Ovid said, add little to little and you have a whole pile. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)