Jump to content

Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Taiwan vs Republic of China

The list currently uses common names for countries throughout. Recently a move has been made to change Taiwan to Republic of China. I feel like this only adds confusion as it is not commonly known as that as least as far as in US English which the article seems to be written in. I feel it should be left as Taiwan and not changed to Republic of China. (Note Republic of China redirects to Taiwan.) XFEM Skier (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

But Republic of China is a sovereign state，so we can't use Taiwan instead of the Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A862678110 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Official names do not determine Wikipedia naming. Common English usage does, see WP:COMMONNAME. The target article is named Taiwan, since that is the established common name in English. Changing the name in this list to Rep. of China will still link to the same article through redirect. T*U (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should respect the facts！In Taiwan, the official address is Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A862678110 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please use wikipedia policy to make your point that the name should be changed to Republic of China. The case has been given above that common name is Taiwan and per WP:COMMONNAME that is what wikipedia uses. Also please stop edit warring, leave Taiwan until consensus is reached here and then a change can be made. Continued edit warring can lead to being banned. XFEM Skier (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect area of Philippines

According to the sources, Philippines has an area of exactly 300,000 square km, not 342,353 as stated here. Looking back through the history, this was changed back in January 2014 by User:The one who has Made a world map without an explanation, and nobody has corrected it since. So the area should be changed back to 300,000 and the rank back to 73. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.184.49 (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

If the sources support the change feel free to make the change. The wiki article for the Philippines seems to support the 300,000 square km number. XFEM Skier (talk) 04:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Russia and Crimea

Does the Russian area include the Crimean peninsula or does the Ukraine have it on this list. Also, how do we define who has the area. Obviously if you are going to try to visit Sevastopol68.149.156.139 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC), you are effectively going to need a Russian visa, regardless of whether you believe you should only need to meet the Ukrainian requirements for entry.

The standard for counting area is given in the heading of the article. Russia does not count Crimea nor should it. It is not internationally recognized as part of Russia. If the UN and international community in general begins to recognize Crimea as part of Russia as opposed to the Ukraine then the list should be updated at that point. There we a number of edits and reversions about this when Russia first entered Crimea. XFEM Skier (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Athos

Hello, should Mount Athos be listed here? Does anybody know why it is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.224.69 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should be listed separately from the rest of Greece. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it less "autonomous" than -say- Coral Sea Islands or Cook Islands or Niue or Faroe or Sandwich? (I'm not trying to argue, I'm simply trying to understand the factors considered for listing separately)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.178.216.169 (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
The Dependent territory article is a good guide in this case. There is no mention of Mount Athos on that page. The only territories listed there that are not listed separately in the table here are the Åland Islands and the Caribbean special municipalities of the Netherlands, but I'm not sure why. They are mentioned in the footnotes, though. --Lasunncty (talk) 05:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do land and water areas come from?

The listed source PDF (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2012/Table03.pdf) only has total areas, and none of the other listings on the page it's taken from (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2012.htm) look like they have land and water areas, either. --2.30.141.180 (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The data originally came from the CIA World Fact Book. A few years ago it was decided that that wasn't a neutral source, but no suitable alternative could be found. Thus the link to the source was removed, although the data remained. This is an issue I have been waiting to see resolved for a while. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This list is inconsistent. It lists US with territorial and coastal waters, while it doesn't do that for other countries/territories/dependencies. Also: why are the US minor and outlying islands listed with waters, while northern mariana, guam, am. samoa, virgin islands etc. are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.204.246.147 (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Sources need updating

A few points, to follow up on concerns noted previously: I doubt the 2012 UN Demographic Yearbook has been consulted for all the otherwise uncited figures, as alleged in the lead – I only needed to check as far as the third country on the UN list (Benin) to find a discrepancy. Also the 2014 Demographic Yearbook is now available. I have been able to find area figures of internal waters in the country reports of the 2015 Global Forest Resources Assessments published by the FAO. Together, these two sources could be used to update the table. I will try to do so in piecemeal fashion whenever I have time but help from others would be greatly appreciated. Cobblet (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Egypt-Sudan

What is known about the area of Egypt and Sudan? In whose area encompasses the disputed territory, such as Hala'ib Triangle and Bir Tawil rejected both States Stasyan117 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistical Inconsistencies

Data for water area are inconsistent and non-comparable between many countries in this table. Few countries include coastal water and territorial sea in their total area. The article should use comparable data only, and foot note non-comparable data, such as the enhanced US size claims based on coastal and territorial water. Robert Brukner (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I posted a similar issues over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Percent_Water. Honestly think we might want to just remove the % water column at least. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: I agree. There are currently no acceptable international comparators. What is the next step to making this change without causing an uproar?Robert Brukner (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Brukner: I think WP:COUNTRIES might be the first place to test the waters hah! and see what users who are familiar and interested in the topic think. It might be something to remove altogether from country articles if there's so much inconsistency, but I think the national pride motivated editors might object (usually ips who try to make their home nation look better). For this particular article, let's see if others object. But a [{WP:BOLD]] edit might get discussion going. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Ok. I will post a comment, query, recommendation in the talk section of WP:COUNTRIES. Jump in ASAP !!  :) As to a BOLD edit, I would be willing to do so in this article, if you and a least a couple of others from WP:COUNTRIES are prepared to jump into the fray. Robert Brukner (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Here it is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject CountriesRobert Brukner (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Robert Brukner: Thanks! I'll stop by tomorrow and comment. Must go to bed now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 07:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Check out talk:Canada#Water Area of Canada Robert Brukner (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Denmark - Largest country in the world?

Denmark is currently ranked the largest country in the world with a rank of 1. In the notes it says:

Largest country in the world (10.995% of the world's landmass); its Asian portion makes it the largest country in Asia, and its European portion of roughly 3,960,000 km2 (1,530,000 sq mi) makes it the largest country in Europe.[Note 2]

I believe that there must have been a mix-up with Russia and somehow, Russia got replaced with Denmark?


92.111.61.102 (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC) Gundog

Thank you. That change was made here, at 1254 UTC and reverted here, about 50 minutes later. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

This country is listed in Ivoirian French in the bar chart, but as "Ivory Coast" in the table and in its Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.85.76 (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Water area of the United States

The figure given for the uppermost water area of the United States, by the CIA World Factbook, is much higher than the figure given by Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica explain its figure (221,783 square kilometres) is "inland water area ". As a result, I assume the CIA's figure also includes territorial waters, like the total area it provides? If this is correct, we should certainly add clarification.

The introduction states "Water area: the sum of the surface areas of all inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, and rivers) within international boundaries and coastlines. Territorial waters are not included unless otherwise noted".

Removing the figure is also an option since it isn't really needed if the vast majority of other figures do not include territorial waters.

Rob984 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Armenia

How does Armenia have more land area than total area? The numbers (land+water=total) don't add up. Oughgh (talk) 16:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I've just changed and re-calculated the figures. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Greenland

Uhhh, Greenland is an independent country for quite long now, not a part of Denmark anymore. 46.186.72.77 (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It is still part of the Kingdom of Denmark, that hasn't changed. - SantiLak (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Greenland should be counted as part of Denmark, putting Denmark in its proper place as number 12 on this list. Greenland is not independent, nor is it a colony, it is part of independent Denmark. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The Danish Realm article covers this topic pretty well. In my opinion, Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands should continue to be listed separately in this list. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Uhhhhhhh!

Norway is an idependant country too! Not that I am from Norway, but that is ofensive to Elsa, Anna, Sven, Cristof and Olaf! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.102.106 (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Greenland should be added to the area of the EU, since it is territory of Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas480AC (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Greenland is part of the Danish realm but not part of Denmark proper, i.e. it has the same status as other dependent territories whose areas are not included in the area of their respective sovereign states, e.g. Puerto Rico and the US.Jtgw1981 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Bir Tawil

Should this (and other examples of terra nullius) be included in the list? I do not think these areas should be included individually, though I would support including them as one combined entry, with the breakdown in the notes. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes? They are separate areas. We don't list all disputed areas together. And what would the combined area be meaning to show? Antarctica contains the largest unclaimed area, larger than most countries. Rob984 (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"Notes" column

Many "Notes", numbered between Note 12 and Note 64, are singularly called out in the "Notes" column of the table yet do not occupy a cell in that column. Why have an otherwise blank cell that contains only "Note nn"? Why not put the "Notes" in the "Notes" column? Jeff in CA (talk) 18:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that would make more sense. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Dependent Territories

Hello, I just tried to fix the formatting of Guam, Hong Kong, and Gibraltar to match with the other dependent territories of the United States, China, and the United Kingdom respectively, but I notice that there are still other countries' dependent territories (e.g. Greenland) that are counted in the list numbering and not in italics like the US territories, Chines SARs and British overseas territories. Is Greenland special because it is high on the list, or should all non-sovereign territories be formatted the same?

Signore Galilei (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Denmark and Greenland are one sovereign state. Probably the only case when the overseas territory is larger then the main part of the state. The Kingdom of Denmark is the 12th largest sovereign state in the world. Maybe "Denmark" should be italic haha. Rob984 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

China–US dispute: Territorial waters are irrelevant if the UNSD source is consistent

If I am correct in believing the UNSD figures includes internal coastal waters, then the US's total area, including internal coastal waters (9,629,091) is larger than China's total area, including internal coastal waters (9,596,961). I.e., China is larger if we exclude internal coastal waters AND territorial waters, but is smaller even if we only include internal coastal waters. So why are we even mentioning the territorial waters figure provided by the CIA? Or am I missing something? Either way, some clarification is needed in regard to internal coastal waters. Rob984 (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a dispute at all. China is very big, some Chinese articles claim that China is actually the world's second largest country with a total area of 10.45 million square km, based on a secret national land survey in 1988. They point out that the widely used figure of 9.6 million square km was a wild estimate done in 1949, within 2 days after an order issued by Zhou Enlai, the then Premier of the PRC, using some low level estimation methods. They reckon the Chinese government chose to deliberately not to mention or release the real area figure in order to avoid some unnecessary effects to their borderline negotiations with other neighbouring countries.
Source: http://health.gmw.cn/2012-08/02/content_4694441.htm (in Chinese) 101.186.42.133 (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why China has two different figures for total area; the corresponding note does not explain the reason for the two figures. Is it related to the incorporation of Hong Kong and Macau into territorial China?Jtgw1981 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the first figure. Both are just estimates from different sources, but of the same area apparently. I kept the UNSD's figure since it's the source used for most other countries. Rob984 (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Svalbard and Jan Mayen are part of Norway, not dependent territories

These islands are actually part of Norway proper, unlike Bouvet Island which is a dependent territory. Svalbard has a strange status, not being a county, and being outside of the EEA (which has a whole bunch of implications), as well as allowing anyone to reside there. However, it isn't autonomous, and still falls under Norwegian law by default. Jan Mayen is just an uninhabited island that happens to be a part of no county, although its administered by the governor of Nordland, and again, also falls under Norwegian law by default (and more so then Svalbard, since it doesn't have an EEA opt-out).

There are other examples of territories which are part of states and listed separately, such as New Caledonia, the Åland Islands, or the Faroe Islands, however these are actually autonomous territories, and often where the sovereign state's law doesn't apply by default. Clipperton Island is uninhabited, so obviously not autonomous, however French law doesn't apply here by default, instead it must be extended like a dependent territory.

The fact is, no one criteria works. ISO codes include French overseas regions which are considered an integral part of France. Autonomous overseas areas would include regions like the autonomous regions of Portugal—which are considered an integral part of Portugal. And not being legally part of the state means that Greenland would be considered part of Denmark, when it is isn't considered to be.

So we have to take these factors, and also look at how the territory is actually governed. If a territory is legally part of a state, and the state's law applies by default, and it's not autonomous, it cant hardly be considered a dependent territory. Svalbard and Jan Mayen are just sui generis internal territories of Norway.

Rob984 (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)+

Svalbard's separate status was created under an international treaty. This seems far less "by default" than say, New Caledonia. (Also I'd be personally interested in any sources you have about Clipperton Island.) Jan Mayen I agree can be done away with though. CMD (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Northern Ireland's status is also subject to an international agreement. I don't see how that treaty effects the Svalbard's status as an internal part of Norway. Norwegian law certainly does apply by default, since the Norwegian parliament is the only law-making body spanning Svalbard. They don't make special laws for Svalbard unless necessary (due to its status). In fact, Svalbard as a whole doesn't even have a local government (it only has municipal councils for settlements), so has less autonomy then a county of Norway. I don't have a source for Clipperton Island, but my understanding is that French law only applies to the 18 regions of France by default (as oppose to needing to be explicitly extended), and Clipperton isn't part of a region. Rob984 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
It affects its common treatment by sources as a special administrative territory. I would argue that Norwegian law does not apply by default, given the restrictions imposed, but in a way that is semantics. Given the liberal criteria currently used in this article, I would prefer to include it rather than not.
I would appreciate any such references regarding French law in the future, if you encounter them. CMD (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

What about Sealand?

Isn't Sealand a sovereign state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.30.57.162 (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if your serious, but Roughs Tower is 6 nautical miles from the coast of Great Britain, and thus within the territorial sea of the United Kingdom (which, since the 1980s, extends out 12 nautical miles from its coast line). UK territorial sea is sovereign UK territory, in which UK law fully applies. No country recognised Sealand, thus it is a micronation within a fully recognised sovereign state. Glad that matter is settled.... Rob984 (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kingdom of Denmark should be added

The sovereign Danish state, Kingdom of Denmark, should be added as Denmark in the list refers only to Denmark proper and not the entire state. In the list Finland includes both Finland proper and the Åland Islands. UK is also on the list and not split into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.--Kisualk (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not at all like the UK. See Dependent Territory and Danish Realm for more background on the matter. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. The article of the Danish Realm is being discussed at the moment as its seems there is a lot of confusing about it. So it's not a good reference at the moment. How is this not like the UK? The UK is not spit into it's separate parts so the complete Danish state should also be represented as a whole.--Kisualk (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Lasunncty, maybe you should actually read Dependent territory?
"A dependency is commonly distinguished from subnational entities in that they are not considered to be part of the integral territory of the governing state."
"the United Kingdom has 12 Overseas Territories"
"The Kingdom of Denmark contains 2 self-governing countries."
That article actually supports the OP's argument, the Kingdom of Denmark is a single sovereign state (albeit made up of three nominally separate countries), and the 12th largest in the world. The Falklands are not a constituent country of the United Kingdom, whereas the Faroes are indeed a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Faroes are only similar to the Falklands in that they posses a large degree of autonomy and are situated a large distance away from the Denmark proper. They are overseas territory, but not dependencies.
I'm not sure the how we should handle the Kingdom of Denmark, but we do need consistency and reasoned explanation as to how we go about it. Rather then anecdotal comparisons due to misinterpreting another Wikipedia article.
Rob984 (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
In that context, Scotland would be considered a dependency of the UK as well. Greenland and the Faroe Islands are areas within the Danish state but with devolved powers from the Danish parliament, exactly like Scotland in the UK. I still would like the state of Denmark, not only Denmark proper, presented here same as the UK.--Kisualk (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue the political status of Greenland and Faroe Islands. I just mean that they are not like England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as the OP suggested. The dependent territory article I mentioned does say these areas are "sometimes considered dependencies", which is why they are listed there. I pointed out those articles just to give more information and show that Denmark is not the only country with questionable dependencies. However we decide to treat Denmark, we should be consistent with the others as well.
One other thing I'll point out is that ISO 3166-1 is stated as one of the inclusion criteria for this list, which is why Greenland and Faroe Islands were included here to begin with. --Lasunncty (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Scotland and England also have ISO 3166 codes but are not listed here. I fail to see how Greenland and the Faroe Islands differ from Scotland, Wales etc. Well Scotland and England agreed to make a new country, the UK, whereas the already existing Denmark absorbed Greenland and the Faroe Islands into the Danish state.
My preferred solution is to use Wikipedia's common practice of using the common country names and not the official names. Finland, not the Republic of Finland, Norway, not the Kingdom of Norway etc. In other words, Denmark should mean the state of Denmark (Kingdom of Denmark) and not Denmark proper as it is practiced here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states .However I don't oppose keeping Greenland and the Faroe Islands on the list as long as the Danish state is also represented.--Kisualk (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Currently there is no duplicated territory on the list. I think it's either the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole, or the three countries within that state. Its confusing having the same area covered in more then one entry.
Regarding the naming, I disagree. "Denmark" is ambiguous, it refers to both the Kingdom of Denmark, and also to the country within the Kingdom of Denmark, also called Denmark. To make out these are the same thing is preposterous. The country named "Denmark" and the nation of Danish people are very much distinct from the Faroes and Greenland. Within the Kingdom of Denmark, the term rigsfællesskabet (roughly "realm") is used to describe the whole state (although the constitution recognises the whole state as part of the Kingdom of Denmark).
Wikipedia policy is very clear, unambiguous names are preferred over ambiguous names when ambiguity is likely to occur. The use of the most common name is secondary to this.
It would be worst then calling the US "America" on this list. The reader would have no idea if it meant the small country in Europe, or the entire sovereign state.
Rob984 (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You are not entirely correct. Formally, Denmark's name is Kingdom of Denmark. There should not be any doubt about this, since it has been the case the last millennia or so. But its true that Denmark proper is also commonly known among people as Denmark. Its important to understand, that the country named Denmark is an independent country and a sovereign state. Denmark proper is neither. When you substrate Greenland and the Faroe Islands from Denmark, you get Denmark proper.
To say Denmark is not the same as the Kingdom of Denmark is like saying Finland is not the same as the Republic of Finland or, that the UK is not the same as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Which is nonsense if you ask me. Here is Denmark's official website http://denmark.dk/en/society/greenland-the-faroes-and-the-german-minority/ .It says quit clearly that Greenland and the Faroe Islands are also part of Denmark. It even states that Denmark is the same as the Kingdom of Denmark.
Btw. "Rigsfælleskabet" or "Rigsenheden", is called the unity of the Realm and describes the relations within the Danish state where the Parliament has devolved powers to the elected assemblies on Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The Prime Minister's Office explains it here http://stm.dk/_a_2752.html --Kisualk (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
England and Scotland are not listed in ISO 3166-1. Åland Islands are currently duplicated, having their own entry as well as being counted as part of Finland. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is it a mistake that the UK countries have listed an ISO 3166 code on their WP country site? And how come they don't have an ISO 3166-1 code being subdivisions of the UK? I believe Greenland and the Faroe Islands are members of the WTO, as they are their own customs territories. That is enough to obtain an ISO 3166-1 code.--Kisualk (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Kisualk, I acknowledged that "Denmark" is a short form of "Kingdom of Denmark", and can refer to the whole state, but it also can refer to solely Denmark proper, making it an ambiguous term.
If we're going to duplicate territory, the same would need to be done for Norway (in respect to Svalbard), France (in respect to New Caledonia and others), etc.. Only four states actually have external dependent territories (territories which are legally regarded as not part the state). Possibly only three, since allegedly the United States actually includes its external territories.
ISO 3166-1 is a poor indication. Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which is certainly not part of the UK, lacks its own ISO 3166-1 code. Conversely, French Guiana, which is a fully integral part of France, has an ISO 3166-1 code. This list should not be based on ISO 3166-1.
Rob984 (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
(The divisions of the UK have ISO 3166-2 codes, not 3166-1.) The description of ISO 3166-1 says that it includes "countries, dependent territories, and special areas of geographical interest". I agree that it may not be exactly what we are looking for here, but is there a better alternative? --Lasunncty (talk) 06:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is Finland not an ambiguous term as well, referring to both Finland proper and the Republic of Finland? Yet there is no controversy using Finland to refer to the Finnish state.
You do realize that Greenland and the Faroe Islands are legal parts of the Danish state? They are no more dependent territories of Denmark than the four countries in the British state are dependent territories of the UK. I define the Danish state as the area where the Danish constitution applies. How do you define the Danish state and why are you reluctant to add the Danish state (as I define it) to the list?--Kisualk (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
It's incorrect that the Faroes and Greenland are as integrated as the United Kingdom. For example, the Faroes and Greenland each has only two seats in the Folketing, and they are elected from pools independent from Denmark Proper. The entire UK on the other hand has members in Westminster elected through the same system, with representation based roughly on population. There is an argument to be made here, but pushing a connection with the UK based simply on meaningless semantics doesn't help it. CMD (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The Greenlandic and Faroese seats in Parliament are also based on their populations, which are just under one percentage of the entire population (same as the 2 seats out of 179 total). Local parties on Greenland and the Faroe Islands are elected from separate pools because of choice, not by law. They are allowed to run for election nationwide but choose not to do so, because then the national parties also will want to run for election in "their pool". Does the SNP in Scotland not run for election in Scotland's own separate pool of 59 seats in Westminster?--Kisualk (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Kisualk, its pretty fucking obvious from my first comment in this thread that I do. But let's be clear, Denmark proper, Greenland and the Faroes form the weakest association of territories to make up a single sovereign state. The Faroes and Greenland are entirely internally self-governing (Scotland and Wales are not). But indeed, they are one sovereign state—and I have never disputed this fact.
If we show the Kingdom of Denmark whole, then this applies to every other state with overseas areas. The French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Norway, and Australia, would all need to be amended accordingly. The only states with actual dependent territories that are outside of their borders are: the UK, New Zealand, Norway (in respect to its territories in the southern hemisphere, not Svalbard), and disputably, the United States (in respect to its "external territories").
Changing just Denmark is not an option.
The argument for not adding these territories to the area of the state is that they are effectively separate dependencies, and are almost always listed separately in international rankings. We have to consider if showing the Kingdom of Denmark whole is helpful to our readers, rather then just the plain fact that the mighty Danish kingdom is one sovereign state under its constitution.
Rob984 (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I apologize because I overlooked your first comment. I do however not agree with everything in your last comment (16:59, 1 February 2017).
You write that "The Faroes and Greenland are entirely internally self-governing". This is not true. They are self-governing only on matters devolved from Parliament, same as Scotland if I understand devolution in UK correctly. Danish law applies to Greenland and the Faroe Islands by default unless it is specifically stated in every single law, that it does not. Even then the Danish government can change a law, which does not apply outside Denmark proper, and instate it on Greenland and the Faroe Islands by "simply" removing the sentence from the law, that excludes Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Its called a "Kongelig anordning" in Danish. Danish reference: http://www.lovprocesguide.dk/sw4125.asp
Regarding France on the list, it does include its overseas regions as well as France proper. Finland also includes the Åland Islands, even though they are listed separately as well. But its true that Norway does not include Svalbard and the Netherlands does not include Aruba. So what to do? As this is a list showing the areas of sovereign states, I would like to have the unitary state of Denmark represented (in all its glory so to speak) in the same way as seen on this WP list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states --Kisualk (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The Faroes/Greenland are self-governing much more than most other autonomous areas. Far more so than Scotland is. One example that comes clearly to mind is that they are outside of Danish customs. Having ones own customs is not entirely unique to Greenland/the Faroes, but it's rare and shows a huge degree more autonomy than the UK administrations have. Looking at the application of the laws in practice is important, we shouldn't just rely on theories about the how the laws could be applied.
Regarding the other countries, France on this list does not include its overseas territories, despite these being legally integral parts of France. France may be the closest comparison to Denmark that can be made. I think they should be treated similarly. At any rate, we shouldn't duplicate like we have with Aland. (I would disagree with Rob about Australia. Their territories are separate, although it's a bit ambiguous.) CMD (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
France does include its overseas regions, but not its overseas collectivities, although they are all integral parts of France. Now that is confusing. On a closer look, the Netherlands actually do include its special municipalities in the Caribbean, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba. They don't even share currency with metropolitan Netherlands.
Greenland and the Faroes Island are outside the EU customs area, as the Åland Islands are, but I'm not anymore sure they regulate their own customs laws. Contrary of what I believed myself, they are not part of WTO in their own rights.
I'm not sure what you mean about "on theories about the how the laws could be applied". The Danish Government uses this "Kongelig anordning" on a regular basis. It is by no means theoretically. BTW. did you see my reply to your comment about elections on Greenland/Faroes and in Scotland?--Kisualk (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The French overseas regions are integral regions of France, similar to how Alaska and Hawaii are US states. The same is true for the Dutch special municipalities. They both have some additional powers and unique administrative characteristics from their mainland counterparts, but so do the autonomous regions of Portugal. Maybe because, I don't know, they are 1000 miles from the mainland? Using the Euro when your biggest trading partner is the US doesn't make a lot of sense. It's not surprising that two different parts of the Netherlands use the currency most widely used in their respective continent.
In contrast, the Faroes and Greenland have pursued internal self-governance because they are a distinct people who wish to govern themselves. They are nominally separate countries—which is certainly not something that can be said about the French overseas regions or Dutch special municipalities. The Kingdom of Denmark as a whole is not considered one country, nor are its citizens considered one nation. Similarly, New Caledonia is part of the French Republic, but few would consider New Caledonia as "France", or New Caledonians as French people. If the Faroes and Greenland became independent states, they would be the 8th and 9th least populated UN members respectively. Many dependent territories do not seek independence because they are too small. Hmmmm.
Basing this list entirely on constitutional arrangements seems very disingenuous to our readers. After researching the specifics of Faroes and Greenland, I'm far less convinced by your arguments. I also dont see any inconsistency in the list currently. The criteria is based on the de facto status of territories. I highly oppose listing the same area in more then one listing—this is confusing for readers. However, I do not oppose listing the full area of the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, etc. in the Notes section.
Rob984 (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
To my understanding a significant minority of New Caledonians do consider New Caledonia to be France and them to be French. Current infighting over electoral rolls is in part due to this. Not hugely impactful to your overall point though!
Kisualk, I saw your election post but forgot to respond. Regarding UK national elections, the first-past-the-post system means there are no pools, but individual seats. Each party does indeed choose which seats to run in, but those seats are distributed in a way that balances over the whole UK (and only one party actually runs in the entire country). Regarding theoretical applications, I meant it is not that helpful to discuss what it could be used for. Theoretically, the UK parliament could dissolve the Scottish parliament. In practice, this is not going to happen. Greenland and the Faroes have a high degree of autonomy, and as Rob points out, a significant national independence.
The situation of de facto status is perhaps a bit more complicated than Rob presents it as, but most external sources I've read do seem to separate out Greenland on lists such as these, as consistently if not more so than the other constitutionally awkward territories. CMD (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Rob984 and CMD, thank you both for your answers. I agree on a personally level with you on many things in your posts. One thing I don't understand, is why you are so keen to argue that Greenland and the Faroe Islands should not be viewed as a part of Denmark while, at the same time you have no trouble viewing Scotland as a part of the UK. Rewriting your words, you could argue, that Scotland pursues internal an external self-governance because they are a distinct people who wish to govern themselves. The UK as a whole is not considered one country, nor are its citizens considered one nation. Scots are only British citizens in the same way as Greenlanders are Danish citizens. Greenland/Faroes have individual seats in the Danish parliament that are distributed in a way that balances over the whole Denmark. A Danish citizen is represented equally in the parliament no matter what part of Denmark he resides in. Yes, the Danish parliament dissolving the elected assemblies on Greenland and the Faroe Islands is highly theoretically but in 2015, the Danish parliament was asked to take back an area previously devolved to Greenland. The notion failed because all parties, exempt for one, wished to respect the self-government status of Greenland. There were however no dispute over the parliament's rights to do so, de jure or de facto. Also the Danish government regular changes laws to have effect on Greenland and the Faroe Islands, which previously did not.
Personally I don't mind if Greenland, the Faroe Islands or Scotland for that matter are listed separately or not, but as a Dane it is utterly confusing not to see the sovereign Danish state on the list, same as I imagine it would be for a Briton not to see the UK on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kisualk (talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Denmark indisputably comprises three separate nations, does it not? Do you, as a Dane, consider the Danish nation to consist of Faroese and Greedlandic people? I'd think not. Whereas, the issue as to whether the British are one nation or four separate nations is disputable. Nationalists, and those who simply view the UK as a "union of nations" may well think the British are not one nation, but many Brits feel it is. When an English person visits or goes to live in Scotland, do they feel like they are in a foreign country with a different language and starkly different culture, many hundreds of miles from home? No. The northern English may even feel more in common with the Welsh and Scottish then they do with the south. Rob984 (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Without getting into the semantics, I broadly agree with Rob's points, in that Scotland is wound much more tightly into the UK, socially and culturally, than you seem to think. CMD (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes of course does the Danish nation include every Danish citizen. Why on earth would you try to argue against that? Denmark is considered a national state (one nation) as the Faroese and the Greenlandic "nations" are so small, about 1 % of the population, that they don't change the nation as a whole. For me it is somewhat racist if you do not consider every Danish citizen a Dane regardless of origin or culture. Does an Englishman understand Welsh or do they need to use English together?
It feels again as you are trying to apply different set of rules to Denmark and the UK. The UK is BTW a political "union of nations", at least accordingly to Wikipedia, where as Greenland and the Faroe Islands were absorbed in the already existing Danish state. The Faroe Islands was integrated in the Danish state in 1814 and Greenland was integrated in 1954. They did not form an union or an united kingdom.--Kisualk (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Its not racist, not even xenophobic. I think if you speak to Greenlandic or Faroese people, you'll find they're more offended that you regard them as Danish and not nations in their own right. Icelandic people were Danish citizens at one time. Keep in mind, nationality (legal) and being of a nation (ethnological) are two different things. A nation is an ethnological group of people. Where it largely coincides with a state, you have a nation state. Denmark can still be considered a nation state without 100% of the population being Danish. But anyway, you might well be right, likely some Faroese or Greenlandic people do regard themselves as part of the Danish nation. My point was rather that England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, are generally considered one country (in addition to being countries themselves). The three countries within the Kingdom of Denmark are rarely, if ever, considered one country.
I'm not sure how annexing the Faroes and Greenland somehow makes them any more part of Denmark? Many colonial powers annexed former colonies, France, Portugal, etc.. "BTW" Wales was annexed by England... it didn't gain autonomy until 1998.
Rob984 (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are considered one country? Outside of the UK "nobody" consider them as one country. But, at the same time most people know they together form the British state (UK). They have their own national sport teams but in the Olympics they are one team. Same as Denmark. We agree on many things but I am simply failing to understand why you want to view Denmark and the UK differently. A Greenlandic person is a Danish citizen living on Greenland. When you (a Danish citizen) have been living on Greenland for 6 month, you can vote for the Greenlandic elected assembly (Landstinget). Many Greenlanders do not talk Greenlandic.
The trouble is there is a difference between Denmark as the independent country and sovereign state and then the unity of the Realm where Denmark does not include Greenland and the Faroe Island. Its a bit like Englishmen don't call Scots for English, in the unity of the Realm (rigsfællesskabet) you differentiate between Danish, Faroese and Greenlandic people. Greenlanders are recognised as a People (but nobody know who the Greenlanders are because they are Danish (Danish citizens)), Faroese are not. They are a "community".
As this list is about sovereign states, I don't see why the sovereign state of Denmark shouldn't be added the same way as the sovereign state of the UK is on the list.--Kisualk (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Not really, outside and inside the UK, most agree that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are called "countries". But with the exception of nationalists in the UK, most would probably consider the UK a "country of countries". If you ask an American "what is the UK?" they will most likely reply "a country" not "a state". The French don't even call Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland pays ("countries"), they call them "nations", whereas they do refer to the UK as a pays ("country"; and sometimes England, though they tend to use Angleterre as a synonym for UK). I digress...
I think you're forgetting the fact that Denmark, Greenland and the Faroes are much further away from one another the the four countries of the UK. Its just not comparable. Your argument pretty much centres around the fact that they are also termed "countries"—a straw man. And your arguments seem more to suggest we should split the UK up then include the Kingdom of Denmark as one. This is a list of sovereign states and dependencies. Removing de facto (though not constitutional) dependencies is not helpful to our readers, I do not think.
You're not really bringing anything new to this discussion, just repeating what you have already said in one way or another. We're currently following how reliable sources present the data. I don't see a strong argument to deviate from this. Maybe the title should be changed to List of countries and dependencies by area though.
Regards,
Rob984 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
It does seem odd having a list of sovereign states which does not include all sovereign states. Thinking of the US and Hawaii, I don't believe one should use distance between areas to decide if they can be considered a country or not. Again my intention was not to spit the UK up in smaller regions. It was simply to include the total area of the Danish state on the list.--Kisualk (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, Kisualk. I boldly modified the name to reflect the fact that these are not necessarily whole states, but rather what is generally considered a country or a dependency. I know this isn't your preference, but I get the impression you would at least prefer the title to be accurate to what the list shows, then misleading. Wikipedia does have a definite list of sovereign states here: List of sovereign states.Rob984 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of countries and dependencies by area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The stat.kz link still was not good, but I found a corrected url stat.gov.kz which works and shows the referenced information. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

canada is smaller than china and usa

if you just include land than china is 2nd usa is 3rd and canada is 4th — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

UK sea territory underestimated

I think the figures for the United Kingdom are wrong. Compare the size of Germany and the UK on this map of territorial borders

https://www.opendemocracy.net/rafi-segal-yonatan-cohen/territorial-map-of-world

and then explain how in this table, Germany was some 8,350 km2 of water but the UK only 1,680 km2.

Please note I am not disputing the German figures, just asking why the UK, with its enormous North Sea territory which it exclusively drills for oil, has so much of its territory excluded from this ranking. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.219.18.82 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

This table only includes inland water bodies (lakes and rivers) and coastal waters (small bays). The total and water figures generally do not include territorial waters (with the exception of the Untied States, for its larger set of figures).
By the way, EEZ is not territorial sea, it's just resource rights, and still considered international waters. The UK's territorial sea only extends out 12 nautical miles. The UK's EEZ which extends far out into the Atlantic is not considered UK territory.
Rob984 (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
If you want to see a map showing the actual territorial waters of countries, take a look at https://www.openstreetmap.org. It would be great if we could include a break down of each countries' territory:
  • Land;
  • internal waters (inland and coastal waters);
  • and territorial waters.
But I'm not sure if the data is available.
Rob984 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Israel

While I realize there are Zionist wikipedians who support the idea of greater Israel, I see no reason why wikipedia should be stating that territory under Israeli military occupation, which the international community has routinely condemned and universally agrees that Israel has no sovereignty in any part of the West Bank, is part of Israel proper. We don't subtract ISIS controlled territory from Syria or Iraq or add Iraqi territory to the USA last decade, so why would we add occupied territory to Israel? Of 19 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Countries greater than 1.5 million

Why is Europe in that list but not Asia or Africa? Europe isn't a country nor is Antarctica Mopenstein (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

? Europe is not in the list. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

India

I don't have any source for the percent or area of water for India but it's given as 9.55%. Could someone please provide a source? I have a 50cm globe in front of me and I am absolutely incapable of working out how 9.55% of that huge blotch of land can be water even if it's claiming a 200 mile territorial limit at sea. I think the India water figure needs justifying. JohnHarris (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Philippines: why is the conversion incorrect?

The total land area of the Philippines is currently listed as 300,000 km² and the conversion figure (in brackets) is given wrongly as exactly 120,000 sq mi.

Does anyone know why this is not being converted to the correct equivalent of 115,830 square miles? BushelCandle (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have now almost fixed this imprecision by changing
{{convert|300000|km2|sqmi|abbr=values|disp=br()|sortable=on}}
to:
{{convert|300000|km2|sqmi|0|abbr=values|disp=br()|sortable=on}}
so that it now renders as:
300,000 (115,831)
BushelCandle (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, we should use the same level of precision. I'd guess 300,000 sq kilometres is to 3 significant figures, so should be converted as 116,000 sq miles. This can be achieved with {{convert|300000|km2|sqmi|-3|abbr=values|disp=br()|sortable=on}}:
300,000
(116,000)
Rob984 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately the source for the "300,000" km² is not identified. Unfortunately, although it's a very reasonable guess that the the "300,000" is indeed a rounding to 3 significant figures, it's just conceivable that it is actually accurate to 6 (or 5 or 4 or 2 or even one) significant figures. Consequently, I'd suggest leaving things as they are until we can allocate a source to the figure... BushelCandle (talk) 10:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
(Later): Amazingly, if http://www.nap.psa.gov.ph/secstat/d_natres.asp is to be believed, the total land area of the Philippines is in fact 300,000.00 km² since it seems to be the (suspiciously round) sum of 14,207,582 hectares of "Alienable and Disposable Land" added to the total of 15,792,418 hectares of "Total Forest Land" in the Philippines in 2006. (ie 8 significant figures!) BushelCandle (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
These national figures are broken down by region at http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/W6928E/w6928e0m.htm but normally (the UN agency of) Food and Agriculture statistics are derivative figures as reported by national governments. However, and apart from the sheer serendipity of exactly "300,000", I see no reason to treat the figures for the Philippines with more suspicion than those for/from Oman (positioned above in our table) or Ecuador (immediately below). BushelCandle (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Changing the subject, since in our Philippines country article the opening body text and infobox square mile figures disagree (the infobox shows the same schizophrenia in conversion precision) should this discrepancy be corrected there too? BushelCandle (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Amazing indeed. And yeah of course. Did you find out the reason why the template is not rounding correctly? Seems pretty counter intuitive for a conversion template. It normally figures the correct level of precision, and I wouldn't even check the rounding is correct. I mean, why is the template programmed to, by default, simply cut off the additional precision (by outputting the value as an integer or something) and not round it correctly? Rob984 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian Antarctic Territory

Should Australia's Antarctic territory be included in Australia's total area? That would make it #2 on this list I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.152.248 (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No, as stated in the intro, none of the Antarctic claims are included, but they are mentioned in the notes for Antarctica itself. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Including Exclusive Economic Zones

A list should be added to the article but should include the exclusive economic zones of each country on the surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.226.235.214 (talk) 06:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of countries and dependencies by area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Archive works for the first one, and I found an updated link for the second one. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What is bigger: USA or China

There are different numbers in this article and in that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States According to this article the U.S. has 9,833,517 (MILES per square). According to the other it's 9,833,520 (but KILOMETRES per square). But this one has no sources and the other one has sources. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/state-area.html

That means that the U.S. should be count as the 3rd largest country in the world and China as the 4th one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.116.205.7 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly and since the US is overall bigger, it should be placed as third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I strongly recommend anyone wishing to discuss this issue further that they spend some time looking at the talk archives, here and here. This issue comes up repeatedly, again and again, the same arguments are had, the same points made, and agreement is never reached. It would be better if anyone wishing to argue it further had a better understand of the opposing argument before embarking on the same cycle yet again. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:32, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
The figures on this article are sourced. The article was revised to show the US above China less then a month ago (edit warring began on 9 August 2017, before then China was 3rd for a long time). This change does not have consensus. Read the notes which explain the different figures provided for the US. There's no evidence the US is larger in area then China when we consider what the figures show. It's unknown which is larger when taking into account coastal and territorial waters because China does not provide figures for this (the larger figure for the US includes these waters). Furthermore, the vast majority of figures in this table do not include territorial waters, so it doesn't make any sense to rank US higher in the list based on its territorial waters. I've reverted the change because it requires discussion and a new consensus. Rob984 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Dhtwiki, I notice you've been keeping the article stable, however, I don't think the above, between and IP and a blocked editor, overrides the long-standing consensus? I'm guessing this is the "talk page consensus" you were referring to? Rob984 (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It looks like I may be mistaken in what version represents consensus. I thought that the U.S. was being listed as bigger. I was referring to this thread as establishing consensus. The statement Exactly and since the US is overall bigger, it should be placed as third. didn't seem to be refuted by the followup, whose links I didn't follow but which don't lead to particular threads. The relevant archived discussions I looked at seem to mostly make the case that the numbers are confusing. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

At the moment the US area is larger than China, not to mention its exclusive economic zone. So the US should be placed above China because its number is higher. China's areas are disputed and cannot be counted in, not to mention the fact the exclusive economic zone is much larger if one was to consider territories. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

No it isn't. If we compare the figures that we can actually compare (without coastal and territorial waters), China is larger. You cannot say the US is larger then China, including coastal and territorial waters, because we do not have for China's area including coastal and territorial waters. It's something you simply cannot conclude from the data we have. What we can conclude is that China is larger excluding these waters. And what does EEZ have to do with anything? EEZ is international waters and not territory of any country. China's disputed territories are not included in its area in this table, so are not relevant. Rob984 (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
EEZ is the coastal and territorial waters go to the page and read it. It includes the territories and waters of those countries. EEZ is not international waters, it is waters that belong to that country. My point in being exactly until we can compare coastal and territorial waters, the US is larger. Once that data is figured out for China then we can compare but as of this moment the US is larger. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

EEZ is the coastal and territorial waters go to the page and read it.

No it isn't. Territorial waters extends out to only 12 nautical miles, Exclusive Economic Zone extends out to 200 nautical miles. Read the articles yourself mate. EEZ is international waters, and simply defines how far out a country has exclusive resource rights (i.e. fishing, oil, etc.). It is certainly not national territory. You can't enforce laws, you can't control airspace, etc. If Russia wants to fly TU-22 bombers 20 nautical miles off the coast of Alaska, there's nothing the US can do about it.
The US is smaller excluding coastal and territorial waters. This is something we can conclusively determine, whether you like it or not. Nothing else can be determined. It would be WP:OR to state the US is larger. Also, the vast majority of figures in this table do not include territorial waters, why should an exception be made the US, just to rank it higher then another country we don't have the data for?
Rob984 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough however you wrong concerning the table, it allows you to add coastal and territorial waters, not to mention even if you did add that to the total of China, it would be smaller than the US. Also not to mention there are more disputed territories with the US. An exception is allowed just like it is for any other country, and by the way we also have the data to support it. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Nope, read the introduction. The water area column is for internal waters only. Territorial waters are not internal waters. Territorial waters are sovereign territory however, so it's not wrong to include them in the table, but we don't have data for the vast majority of countries. It makes sense to rank countries based on data that we have available for all countries. I think we should add another column for territorial waters, but we can't rank countries based on land + internal waters + territorial waters until that data is available for the majority of countries. We simply can't say one country is larger then the other without comparable data to back this up.

not to mention even if you did add that to the total of China, it would be smaller than the US

Can you provide figures which demonstrate this? Both countries have a large amount of coast, so I don't know how you can be sure about this.
Rob984 (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The US has coasts on both sides of the country, also in Wikipedia it says that the total area of unincorporated territories is just 137,296 km2 and if you add that to the total area then it is still less than the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian101 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss the changes you want to make to contended material (such contention, in this case, indicated by HTML comment you removed), such as whether China or USA is larger, here before making changes to the article. Your comment above is confusing ("it" is China?). Also, please sign your posts. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I apologise and yes the it is referring to China. Guardian101 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
China's disputed territories are irrelevant, they are not considered at all in the ranking, and nobody is using them as justification for the current ranking. Please don't put forward straw man arguments, it just wastes everyone's time.
You are right that the US has a larger coastline, but you still can't calculate the territorial waters of China using its coastline. A country with a smaller coastline could well have more territorial waters then a country with a larger coastline, because there are other factors such as the shape of the country, islands (which are surrounded by territorial waters), etc. According to reliable sources, we can determine that China is larger without territorial waters. We cannot currently determine which country is larger including territorial waters.
Rob984 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes but, the territorial waters have already been given a value and even if you do add it to China it is still smaller than the US. Also if you look at exclusive economic zone which includes territorial waters, China is smaller. Guardian101 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the figure for China's territorial waters? Reliably sourced and not based on your own estimation?
I agree that the United States' territorial waters are probably larger the China's (without China's disputed islands), you're wasting your time trying to convince me of this. But there still isn't a reliable source that says so. Using coastline or EEZ or whatever to estimate the size of China's territorial waters is original research.
For example, if China's has a lot of small islands clustered together, but the US has lots of islands very far apart, the US could have a larger EEZ but China have larger territorial waters. I'm not saying this is the case, but its certainly possible.
Rob984 (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Notes for USA and China are the wrong way round in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfoale2004 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

China is clearly bigger than the United States. China may even be bigger than Canada. The current figure published by the Chinese government is a wild estimate done in 1950. The Chinese government has done another one in the 90s, some reports say the real figure is over 10,000,000 sq km, but the Chinese government deliberately concealed the figure fearing it might cause any unnecessary impact in their borderline negotiations with other neighbouring countries. 2001:8003:862E:1200:4DA4:757E:690B:4B11 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Use a different colour code for Russia on the map

Russia territory is in a league of its own, it shouldn't be in the same colour code as U.S., China, Canada and Australia. It is the only country to have over 10,000,000 sq km. It is more than twice the size of Australia, but they are both part of same colour code. I don't see such a case with the other colour codes. A different colour code would put this fact across more clearly. Use a different colour for countries above 10,000,000 sq km.175.156.30.112 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Russia is huge (and the Soviet Union was much bigger even; I remember >8M sqmi), but you're talking about increasing the visual granularity of the map, and the work that would be required, to set off just one country. I don't see that as the best use of our time and effort. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
If there are users out there willing to change the colour code in order to reflect a more accurate protrayal of Russia's size, would that be accepted? 138.75.26.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Russia : Australia = 2.2
India : Egypt = 3.3
Tanzania : Spain = 1.9
Turkmenistan : Iceland = 4.7
South Korea : Costa Rica = 2.0
Slovakia : Lebanon = 4.7
Cyprus : Vatican City = 21,000

... So I don't see a need to create a separate color just for Russia. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

But Russia is above 10,000,000 sq km. There are different colours for those countries above "5", and "10" marking etc. Russia fulfills that. To be consistent, I see need to create separate color. Blue colour should be for 5,000,000-10,000,000. Create separate colour for 10,000,000+. This will improve the map to be more consistent and accurate.138.75.9.101 (talk)
If you can make a new map and present it here for consideration, that would be a start, and answer my implied concern above that this discussion would mean work for someone other than those suggesting change. You might even find other ways to improve the map, if you're skilled. It doesn't mean you'll get agreement to its replacing the present map, but it would be a start. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Pointless. There is no reason to have a "size group" with just one member.--Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Bigger problem with the map is the projection it uses. Rob984 (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Serbia

According to the provided source and UN remarks, area of Serbia is 88 361. Somebody edited that but didn't change other data, so they deducted area of Kosovo and Metohija in km2, but didn't bother to calculate it in mi2. If we are going to use data provided by UN we should stick to it, otherwise we can reduce the area of Ukraine, Georgia, Cyprus, etc.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zemun90 (talk • contribs)

Morocco doesn't include Western Sahara which is shown separately, adjacent to a flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which is without doubt in my mind an endorsement of the partially recognised state. I agree we need a consistent approach to disputed territories and partially recognised states. Rob984 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
At the very least the undisputed area, total controlled area, and total claimed area should be listed for every state, even if only in the notes column. The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic should be listed separate from Western Sahara as well, given the latter is a neutral term for the territory claimed by both Morocco and the declared state (which is recognised by a hefty 47 countries and administers a small amount of territory). Rob984 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Change "land area" to "dry land area"?

"Land area" to me would infer the entire area up to the coastline. Lakes and rivers are on land, hence "inland water bodies". Granted this is clarified in the introduction explanation, but many wont read this. Rob984 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Greenland in Denmark

Why is Greenland not counted as part of Denmark? Yes it's not part of the EU, yes it's autonomous, but so have a lot of countries on that list. In fact, it's pretty much half of the whole world, with various degrees of course. Where is the line, and who decides? I remember in the past the US was listed before China because of an inconsistency by the CIA, it rightfully got changed, so how about this one? It just doesn't make sense. Greenland is part of Denmark. EnTerbury (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Greenland is part of Denmark but Greenland is also a non-independent country in it's own right. The title of the article was changed so it didn't mentioned sovereign states. Of course now England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are missing on the list as they are also non-independent countries, are they not?Kisualk (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Someone’s been tinkering..,

...with UK area figures. I can’t see from here what to correct it to. Boscaswell talk 23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Rank number

I notice that all UN member states plus Taiwan have got a rank number here in the list, since Taiwan is not UN member or observer state, the number should be removed. Otherwise, Kosovo, South Ossetia, West Sahara, Artsakh, Abkhazia should all get the rank number. Jiangyu911 (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan was more widely recognized than the others, at one point, and must still be so regarded by the sources we're using. I think that you make a fair point. Taiwan may have to be eventually regarded as a dependency of China, but not until our sources reflect that. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't make much sense does it? What was the case at one point shouldn't be reflected at what is today, unless it IS today. Furthermore, back then it was only known as "Republic of China" (which is by the way still its official name and so should the Wiki article be named actually). Surely, as an encyclopedia Wiki shall only reflect the source, which is your only valid argument, because the point is his, the sources are wrong. EnTerbury (talk) 19:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do, reflect sources. If you can't find sources that reflect your version of the truth, then your view is apt to be a fringe one. If you won't try to find such a source, and then gain consensus, but still expect to impose your world view, then why shouldn't you be accounted either arrogant or lazy or both? Dhtwiki (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It's weird. Jiangyu made a good point, only the universally recognised 193 UN member states plus 2 UN observer states should be ranked. Taiwan is less recogised than Kosovo or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic internationally, therefore it shouldn't be ranked at all. 2001:8003:8608:2200:6865:4149:E621:86A8 (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree, Kosovo currently has 109 states recognising it. Taiwan has only 16. In the interest of consistency i think it should be deranked.Nickmista (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

How should this list deal with Denmark??

Should it use European Denmark or North American Denmark?? If we use both, then all of Wikipedia should use both, and classify Denmark as both a European country and a North American country. Georgia guy (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Denmark is an European (Scandinavian) country. Denmark (the Danish state) includes an island (self-governing country), which is geographically part of North America. Not that different from USA and Hawaii, except that Greenland actually constitute 98 % of Denmark's (the Danish state) area. Kisualk (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

China vs United States size

I'm looking at sources such as [The World Atlas], [The CIA World Fact Book], [Countries of the World], and they have the United States third in area rather than fourth. What gives with the chart here that has China third no mater which way this chart calculates it. The "total area" column is stated above the chart as "Total area: the sum of land and water areas within international boundaries and coastlines." So why the two figures in that column for the United States? Very confusing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2018 (UTC) Wikipedia editors are biased SCUM, they not only include coastal and territorial waters ONLY for the US, but round up from 3,796,000 square miles to 3,8, while rounding down Brazil's from 3,288,000 square miles to 3,2. US REAL total area is 8,525,000 km^2, with coastal water 8,631,000 km^2, with coastal water and territorial waters 8,826,000 km^2 with all that and something else 8,857,000 km^2. CIA factbook couldn't stand that China is bigger than the US so they artificially increased they area by counting water as land.

@Hef8: You'll find that you're not going to get much interest in discussion from others if you start out by calling them "scum". Come back later with a better attitude. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Really? and what is there to discuss? the spread of misinformation ? that some organizations take US side and accept their made up fake area? less than 20 years ago cia "fact"book agreed with that but for some unkown(China) reason they began considering water as land, while denying all other countries the same right. Any one, with two brain cells to rub together, would complain. But there are a lot of people who fall for this and argue that: "if you count Alaska, US is bigger", although, decieving people about it's area, would pale compared to other US lies. Hef8 (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality / disputed problems of article

Article has a problem with neutrality and part of article is disputed. The title of the article is disputed - why "countries and dependencies"? Why not "countries and seas" or "countries and continents"? The title of the article is nonsense. Neutrality is debatable, on list existed continent of Antarctica (without any government) but European Union is removed by opponents without the consensus. There are different theories about dependencies - some are eligible, others are not, there are still editing wars, many edit-wars with many users (lately, for example: Greenland and Denmark). Generally, I think that the article should be changed to List of countries by area and list the list should only contain countries recognized by the UN like List of countries by past and future population, List of countries by population growth rate, List of countries by population, List of countries by refugee population, List of countries by urban population etc. From the article should be delete all the questioned examples (not listed by UN). Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The European Union never will be a country, and the article name is "List of countries and dependencies by area". Your drama is because just your country is not figures in the top of the list. Child drama. Sad. --WikiInspector42 (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
WikiInspector42 wrote: "The European Union never will be a country", Antarctica and part of areas on the list also, so. This is break of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (one of Wikipedia:Core content policies). In addition, there are a number of other problems in the article. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I advise Subtropical-man and WikiInspector42 to stop edit warring and stop labelling each other's edits as vandalism. If you cannot resolve this dispute sensibly all that will happen is that the article will be locked and you'll be blocked. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but my case isn't the same that "Subtropical-man". That self-denominated Gay user is pro-agenda and makes a million of fake accusations to me in every special pages just because don't is allowed to put the European Union. Just is a clearly true vandalism-only account. I'm not the same. Thanks. --WikiInspector42 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I endorse Escape Orbit's warning and would add a request to WikiInspector42 to be civil in all interactions with other editors. Comment on content, not on the contributor. I'd especially refrain from accusing editors with a long history of constructive contributions of being a true vandalism-only account. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
WikiInspector42, this is next personal attack, omitting previous personal trips and calling the correct edition (restore deleted tags) of vandalism. Your personal attacks will not be tolerated. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 02:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
For me, sorry. --WikiInspector42 (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Mexico is not an Amerindian country

Why is Mexico catalogued as "largest Amerindian-culture country"? Mexico is by no means an Amerindiain majority country, less than 15% of its population is of pure Amerindian origins and the mix between European and Amerindian is bigger in the European side as you can see in Demographics of Mexico.

That title should go to countries where the mestizo population is mainly Amerindian like Paraguay, Bolivia or Guatemala, or where the Amerindian population represents a big percentage like Peru or Ecuador. — Wisi~eswiki (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Beyond being possibly wrong, that's the sort of sociological, non-geographical information that doesn't really belong here, and certainly not without being sourced. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that, whether or not Mexico should be described as "Amerindian," such information is not pertinent to this article. I have removed the extraneous information from the entry for Mexico. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to use Gall–Peters projection

Since we're talking about area, does anyone disagree that it would make more sense to use a Gall Peters projection map? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection TFJamMan (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Please fix some colors

In the map European France and French Guiana are colored differently. They need to be colored the same because they're part of the same country. Georgia guy (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we don't control the map from here; and its creator, User:Briefplan, isn't answering his recent talk page posts and hasn't edited since 2009; nor is there much activity at File talk:Countries by area.svg. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have started work on it. I expect to have it done in a few days. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, sooner than I thought. Now done. --Lasunncty (talk) 11:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Morocco and Western Sahara

If we consider Western Sahara to be its own country, then it would simply be #77, and then all the ranks in this list from 77 upwards are off by one.

If we consider Western Sahara to be part of Morocco, then Morocco is the 39th largest country and all the ranks in this list from 39-57 are wrong; 39 should be Morocco and 40-57 should be what this list labels as 39-56.

Either way, this list is wrong; it pretends Western Sahara is nothing. Any reason?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

@User:Georgia guy, how to classify Western Sahara is particularly tricky because (i) most of Western Sahara is, de facto, occupied by Morocco, but it is not considered by the international community to be *part of* Morocco, and (ii) the self-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which has substantial, but by no means general, international recognition, has de facto control over less than half of the land area of Western Sahara.
In the article, Morocco is listed and ranked as #57 based on its area excluding Western Sahsra, but a footnote clarifies that, were Western Sahara to be considered part of Morocco, Morocco would be ranked #39. As for Western Sahara, it is listed under "Western Sahara" and not under "Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic," and it is placed in the appropriate spot based on the total land area of Western Sahara (and not just the area controlled by the SADR). However, Western Sahara is not given a number rank, for the same reason that Kosovo, Taiwan, Palestine aren't given a ranking number: The convention applied throughout Wikipedia is that articles that rank countries may list states that are not generally recognized as soveeign states by the international community (and may even list dependent territories), but that ranking numbers are reserved for generally recognized independent states.
In my opinion, the article accounts for Western Sahara's land area in exactly the right manner, and it certainly isn't true that it deems Western Sahara to be "nothing" (any more than it deems Kosovo to be "nothing"). I would keep the article's references to Western Sahara exactly as they are, but I welcome the opinion of other editors so that we can reach a consensus. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Correct total areas, especially for Island states

I see that many Island states and dependencies do not have their 'water area' included which distorts the overall listing. Two that stand out are Kiribati (total area = continental USA), and French Polynesia. Pacificbiblio (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Only internal waters (lakes, rivers, etc) are included, not territorial waters or EEZs. --Lasunncty (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Lasunncty, I missed that caveat. I disagree with the decision but understand; perhaps a link to <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone#Rankings_by_area> would useful ?

Pacificbiblio (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Denmark is a country

Denmark is a country. It should have a number (12) next to it. Then there would be 195 countries on this list, like the 195 on the “List of countries and dependencies by population”. DaddyBeee (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Denmark is 1/50 the size of Saudi Arabia; Denmark's position is at #130. Georgia guy (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Denmark is listed twice: once after #11, with a note stating "UN figure does not include entire Kingdom of Denmark area"; and again at #130, with a note stating "Metropolitan Denmark only, without Greenland and the Faroe Islands".

Pacificbiblio (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Dependencies should be included with state

Many 'dependencies' are clearly part of the governing state (at least for the moment). Their separation from the 'mother' state distorts the order / listing.

A good example is France, where French Polynesia and New Caledonia, with their large water area, are excluded from the overall area of the French state, very much distorting the table.

Another is the Australian Antarctic Territory which should be included in Australia. This 6.6M km² puts Australia second on the list behind Russia.

Another possibility would be to double list certain countries - with and without their 'dependencies'

Pacificbiblio (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

What countries do you think should be double-listed?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that EEZs are not included in the areas, the double listing would not have much impact on orders in the list; but I would include France Kingdom of Denmark, USA, UK, Kingdom of Netherlands - and perhaps to be consistent, New Zealand, Australia, Norway

Pacificbiblio (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area/Archive_2&oldid=1050406455"