Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of countries[edit]

A complete list, with possibly minor adjustment request that I can anticipate and fix. -- KTC 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'll wait with my vote for now. I would have to object based on lack of references, reference format (WP:CITE), and so on. Use the UN members page as one reference, and try to find other references for the non-recognized nations. Good luck! —Nightstallion (?) 08:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Can also use the CIA Factbook as reference as well. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Added. -- KTC 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The UN document that you saw list not just UN members but also most (all?) of the other places. One of the column specificly is used to list whether the entry is UN members / dependent etc. I've now also added CIA Factbook link, and a page from EU. Between the 3 of them, all of the information in the list should be covered.
I'm having difficulty understanding what you mean by reference format. Can you please expand on your comment? -- KTC 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
References need to be in a special format. Check how websites are referred to in other articles which have become featured in the last month or so. Besides, you still haven't added references for the non-recognized nations; to the best of my knowledge, they are not mentioned in either of the three links. —Nightstallion (?) 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Finally got the time to do it. Added BBC (+1 CIA) article links as footnotes for the non-recognized nations. -- KTC
Mh. For some reason, the references don't show up for me; I tried to fix it, but couldn't... —Nightstallion (?) 10:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. That was because some **censored** IP removed them. Now, if you could change the formatting of the references to look like they should and correct spelling errors ("retrived"), I think I'd be inclined to support. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Corrected spelling. Otherwise, now now, you're just being pedantic over the exact format of References. Apart from missing the word "retrieved" (with the correct spelling this time :P), it's in exactly the same format as all the FA & FL you're thinking of. It's not "retrieved" in a certain date because although it's a website link, those are basically publication which are reguarly updated so as to having different edition. So it's more correct just to reference a particular edition.
If you really want it in a particular format, you can always change it. (and then support) ;-) -- KTC 13:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The exact format is important, because this way, it includes two distinct dates: date of last update, and date when it was last accessed (i.e. certainly available). —Nightstallion (?) 13:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)