Talk:Extreme points of Vatican City

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move with no prejudice for any future merge. JPG-GR (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support As far as I am aware, Vatican City never takes an article. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose — I have almost always heard it referred to as "the Vatican City", which perhaps stems from its official name: "State of the Vatican City". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose we'll have to have a "most impressive set of sources" contest then. Rather than put it here, I've created a "comments" section below. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I am mistaking the use of "the Vatican", which is sometimes used in a nearly identical sense. I'm not opposing (nor supporting) the move. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources for article v.s no article
Here's what I found in terms of more reliable sources on the web in a quick search. Please feel free to add more references. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources supporting "Vatican City" (no article)
 * Vatican City homepage appropriate self-reference
 * CIA world factbook (!)
 * UPI Note also in text body
 * telegraph.co.uk UK broadsheet's website
 * timesonline.co.uk UK broadsheet's website
 * nationalgeographic.com
 * britannica.com in the text - not just a title
 * NYtimes.com


 * Sources supporting "the Vatican City" (article)
 * unesco.org world heritage site page


 * Sources using a mixture(!)
 * news.bbc.co.uk note I also found articles with occurrences of only one style.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge with Geography of Vatican City
Is this article likely to grow much? Is there any reason it shouldn't be merged into Geography of Vatican City per Extreme points of Austria? --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Hear, hear. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merge: Firstly, if it's Geography of Vatican City, it seems likely that Extreme points of Vatican City is also appropriate. I don't see any recent or historical page moves at the geography article, which suggests that it's probably a stable / uncontested name.  This is confirmed by the article for Vatican City, too.  Secondly, I definitely think that these extreme points be merged into the geography article.  The geography article could do with being "fleshed out" anyway, and the extreme points article is a stubby stub that will always be a stub and which will have more context in a larger article.  I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be extreme points articles; I can see how it might be of more interest in articles with what are actually considered extreme points (pardon the pun), like Tierra del Fuego, Mt Everest, Amazon River, San Andreas Fault, Land's End, habitation, etc.  I don't think that Vatican City lies even roughly within that category and would be better placed and more accessible in the geography article.   Maedin \talk 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or just redirect. Not independently notable, nor perhaps notable enough to be a part of the overall geography article. Dekimasu よ! 13:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Extreme points of Earth suggests this does not reflect consensus. Personally I think extreme points do amount to encyclopedic content for relevant geography articles; splits are warranted when length considerations dictate. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, merging into Geography of Vatican City.  tk tk  tk  00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)