This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"The instrument of ratification is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations." - I don't have a clue what this "instrument" is?!
I think "Instrument of Ratification" is a pretty common term to describe the formal paper that includes the necessary signatures for a government to express its ratification of a treaty. Unfortunately there's not really a wiki article to link to to explain that.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal but I'd put the summary at the end.
Not Done I Guess it's personal as well, but I'd prefer it before the list, because the list is so long. If consensus dictates otherwise I'd be happy to change it.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Listing is a dull heading - why not List of signatories?
Done Changed to listing of states, because not all are signatories.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Avoid blank cells - an en or em dash is usually put in with a reference saying why there's nothing in there. Or, write something before the table that says "If no signatory date is present... If not ratification date is available..." - it's needed because I'd be confused if this lists the "signatories" and somewhere like Cuba hasn't got a signatory date, what are they doing in the list?
Done Good idea. Added explanation at top as opposed to adding a bunch of dashes (but if I still need to add the dashes, let me know). I preferred to keep a list of all countries regardless of their status in one big sortable list, but I don't know for sure what's best.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I added the following note: "Additional states, currently not ratified the treaty, but having nuclear reactors operational or partially completed in the past are: Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Taiwan (not even annex 1) and Thailand." that was tagged with "citation needed". The note itself links to List_of_nuclear_reactors, where these countries are listed and the article itself lists signatories, ratifications, annex 1 and 2 states... Maybe some clarification is needed. Alinor (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
This article should be named "List of ratifiers . . .." The CTBT is not yet in force. A state can only be a party to a treaty that is in force. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree the present wording is not ideal; an alterantive: list of states signatories of CTBT; covering all categories here... L.tak (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
That's even better. NPguy (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Looking at this question again, I found this UN reference, which distinguishes between "Parties" to a treaty that has entered into force and "Contracting States" that have ratified and are prepared to be bound by a treaty that has not yet entered into force. I suggest changing the title to "Contracting States of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty." An alternative would be to keep the current title and explain in the lead that they aren't really parties since the treaty hasn't entered into force. Preferences? NPguy (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I was going to say that those are pretty synonymous to me, but indeed the reference makes the distinction; and it does carry some weight, as it's from the depositary of the treaty... L.tak (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)