Talk:List of countries/Archive 4

England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
According to Wiki, these countries should be included. What's up? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Per the inclusion criteria set out in the article, this list includes:
 * Independent states, whether generally recognised or not.
 * Inhabited dependent territories.
 * Areas of special sovereignty recognised by international treaty or agreement (a catch-all for Hong Kong, Macao, the Palestinian Territories, Svalbard and Åland).


 * England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as integral parts of an independent state, do not meet these criteria, so they are not included. Pfainuk talk 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Pfainuk. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a curious inconsistency however. French territories such as Saint Barthélemy and also British territories such as the Falkland Islands have less authority delegated to them by the national parliaments than have been granted to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies, but are included   -- Snowded   TALK  04:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for Saint Barthélemy, but I would point out that the Falklands Legislative Council actually has rather more authority delegated to it, both in theory and in practice, than do the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.


 * There is no shortage of countries on the list that delegate significant power to their regions, and for this sort of list we do need to use reasonably non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion - if we have Wales, why not Flanders, Bavaria, Nebraska, Catalonia, Kerala and so on? Pfainuk talk 11:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could we compare, say, Scotland with the Falkland Islands. I will give some of the powers that the Scottish Parliament hold. It's a long list so please bear with me. The Scottish parliament control education, health, agriculture and justice. They can also pass tax-varying capabilities. Fisheries and forestry, Economic development, Education, environment, food standards, health,home affairs, Scots law, courts, police and fire service,local government,sport and the arts, transport,training, tourism, research and statistics and social work. The parliament also has the ability to alter income tax by up to 3 pence in the pound. Quite a list. How does this compare to the Falkland Islands? I'm sure the other home countries could name a good few of their own powers. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The FIG has effectively sovereign authority over the Falklands except in defence and foreign policy. This includes all those areas you just mentioned (replacing Falklands law for Scots law), but also other areas such as immigration policy and fiscal policy.  The UK government can put obligations on the FIG (through international treaties and suchlike) but even where they don't make the final decision the FIG get a strong say in how the Falklands meet these obligations.


 * But I do not believe the point of this is to discuss about the differences between Scotland and the Falklands (let alone between England, which has no devolved parliament, and the Falklands) because I don't believe this point is particularly relevant. In order to have any meaning at all, we must have some kind of non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion.  Without that, there is no way we can have a list.  The criteria we use are those listed above. Pfainuk talk 13:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By their very nature your criteria are arbitrary. The article's name is List of countries. As Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are countries they should, therefore be included in this article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * By "non-arbitrary" I mean that these criteria need to be applied consistently throughout the world (for reasons of WP:NPOV) - no rules that only apply to a certain region, no rules that apply to some areas and not others, no rules based some conveniently-chosen power or test to separate some cases from others. Bearing in mind that including England, Scotland, Wales and NI would require a change in the criteria used throughout the list, applied to all parts of the world, what criteria would you use? Pfainuk talk 14:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "Parts of a unified state that are colloquially known across the world as 'countries'." (see Countries of the United Kingdom for the UK's case). Given how inclusive this article has become (which passed my notice), it is frankly silly not include them: they are at least the equal of dependent territories, even though they are effectively part of a whole.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if dependent territories are not countries what are they doing on a list of countries, while those considered countries are ommited. Looks like a pretty mixed up article. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think GoodDay's surprise(!) highlights that this article isn't as clear as it could be regarding the UK. I attempted some changes in July, but a since-proven (and now notorious) puppetmaster was around to revert the improvements. I'll try an edit like this one again, and as another edit, one like this one too. The sockpuppet User:Pureditor (and his 20-odd alternative accounts) hated all mention of the UK in its 'constituent country' context, and routinely reverted it across Wikipedia. The United Kingdom is important enough in global terms to deal with seriously, and is singular enough as a phenomena too, as not too many countries are like it. No-one objective can surely deny that the UK isn't globally important/notable etc. As another edit, I'll also add a mention of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) list, which this list is actually based on. The article Countries of the United Kingdom refers to this list as the ISO list, and this article should really acknowledge the fact itself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm confused - the whole article has changed! It used to be the ISO countries, but isn't anymore - I didin't think such a change could happen. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd have no problem including them in this article; but only if they're situated under the United Kingdom. England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland are not independant folks. At disputes like these? I wish they were; but what we want & what is, are different things. GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But the article is not entitled 'List of independent countries'. So what's the problem? Daicaregos (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Same as at List of flags by country; Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England (if included here) should be situated below the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In your, singular, opinion. You have no consensus for that proposal. Please don't state things as if they have consensus when they don't. It may appear that you are trying to mislead, and I'm sure you wouldn't try to do that. Daicaregos (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm convinced. England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland are independant (i.e. equal to the United Kingdom). Here's a recommendation, folks: Delete the UK from the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to keep the pathos out of this. This is not a list of independent countries. The article is named 'List of countries'. You have agreed elsewhere that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England are countries. By definition they qualify for inclusion in this article. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had enough, here. I'm obviously not getting my point across to anyone (my fault). GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put a massed response here, to save messing up you guys' discussion.


 * This is a list of countries. As the word "country" has many definitions, there is a long section at the beginning of the article defining of the word "country" for the purposes of the article.  These are our inclusion criteria.


 * Per this version of 19 January 2006, the one that was promoted to FA, the article used substantially the same criteria as it does now - it listed Kosovo separately (as a UN protectorate) and some of the wordings are slightly different but other than that they are the same. That version had 243 countries included.  We now have 245, having added Montenegro, Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin and merged Akrotiri and Dhekelia.  That version does not mention the ISO once.  I can't tell what Matt means when he refers to "how inclusive this article has become" since I would consider that to be pretty stable, nor am I sure from where he is getting the notion that this used to be an ISO list.  If it once was based on the ISO list, it had lost that association by the time it became featured nearly three years ago.


 * My issue with including these four is, as I have said, that we need to be consistent in our inclusion criteria or else the list becomes worthless. A list of countries is bound to be target to POV pushers for one cause or another, and I see little need to give them ammunition by using a criterion such as part of a unified state that is colloquially known across the world as a "country".  Even aside instances such as the Pays de la Loire (Loire Country) or Basque Country, where the word "country" is part of regions' names, I can quite see this being exploited fairly to demand inclusion of any given POV pusher's pet POV.  We don't need it, and I don't see we would benefit by it.


 * That's not to say we shouldn't mention the case of England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland specifically as entities not included - indeed we already do so twice (once before the main list, once after) - but I do not see why, in the list proper, they should be treated differently from US States or German Länder. Pfainuk talk 18:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie, Pfainuk. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought this article followed the ISO list a few months back - perhaps I was thinking of List of anthems by country - I had to re-create List of National Anthems to get around the ISO restriction on that one: I will have asumed this article was in line with it. What I can't get about you is that you have compared my country Wales (let alone England and Scotland) twice now to the US states, and yet you use POV and potential offense as an argument!

What you have to understand is that constituent countries are not less-than-real countries - they are countries that are part of a larger unifying whole (which is the state, and an aditional national identity for many (but not all) within it). The 'United Kingdom' simply doesn't exist without the constituent countries that make it up, and it is a united kingdom. Nobody describes the USA in terms of "contituent countries". Your argument of potentially damaging 'nationalism' in light of many of the other 'countries' seems absurd - the list contains dependencies. I'm not too happy about being collectively addressed either, like I'm part of some kind of teenage rabble knocking at your door to get my gang on your list. My suggestion is to include countries internationally recognised as constituent countries.". That would rule out the semi-autonimous Spanish areas (of which there are many), the German Lander and certainly Nebraska (not a friendly example).

So who would claim England etc is a precendent? For those in the Basque country or the Bundelanders, it wouldn't work (Germany, at the centre of Europe, is on its own hitorically) - even if someone did try for their inclusion. We say the 'Kingdom of Spain]', not the 'United Kingdom of Spain' - it's a different situation there too. Aruba of the Netherlands is seen as a constituent country - and it is in the list. Why not Scotland? If it is a question of wording I'm your man to find it. I'd like to also see where this criteria was decided, as I would be happy to set up a poll if it hasn't been done recently. If this was an ISO list I'd simply want the UK to have more pominence as an exception, as it stands I wish to see the UK countries in the list.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree in the main with Matt, and this article is deeply inconsistent. If it just lists sovereign nation states then many of the current list have to go.  If the criterial allow the inclusion of the Falklands then Wales and Scotland stand on the list.  -- Snowded   TALK  21:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded like that because I rather thought - indeed still think - that a load of responses interspersed into the chatter that has already been had is rather confusing for all concerned. But since you prefer it like this, I'll do it like this.  You only need to ask.  Note also, per my user page, that I live in England and am aware of the cultural issues here.


 * I was referring specifically to the criterion you proposed earlier (the only one that has been suggested so far) being used as part of our inclusion criteria - not using England as a precedent but using whatever words we use to include it as a precedent. The sorts of places I was thinking of as potential issues were places like Flanders, Catalonia, possibly Aceh and West Papua, Tibet and so on.  There is no shortage of independence movements in the world, and many could reasonably be argued to fit that description.  Where does it end? Pfainuk talk 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I'm going to propose that this page be renamed List of sovereign states and dependent territories, and this is exactly why. Coming to a definitive list of countries is completely impossible. The word has a bunch of different meanings, and the criteria we use to define countries is always going to be arbitrary. Let's call this list what it is and turn "list of countries" into a disambiguation page or something. Orange Tuesday (talk)


 * Providing the name is consistent with the content its fine, at the moment it isn't -- Snowded   TALK  21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When I finished List of national anthems (I've not worked on it lately) I had planned to essentially copy it over into List of nations (currently a redirect). Perhaps people can help me finish it? At the moment the redirect 'List of nations' leads to List of sovereign states (which is absurd, I know, buts that's how its been for years). List of sovereign states is effectively the ISO list with some new stuff added it seems. I always thought it was a more detailed version of this list - but I always thought this one was ISO based! It's still all a bit of a mess. I don't mind this 'List of countries' being flexible, as long as it is fair. The criteria at the moment here is reasonable, but it falls short over contituent countries.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Integral parts of other countries are not included on this list. This is the reason that dependencies are included where constituent countries are not. Aruba is under the sovereignty of the Netherlands, but it is not a part of the Netherlands. So we include French Polynesia but not French Guiana, Guam but not Hawaii, and Bermuda but not Wales. Is this an arbitrary rule? Yes. But it also puts a hard limit on the number of things that can go on it. Once you start subdividing countries, you open the door for places like Tibet and Chechnya. And if Tibet is on the list, then why not Xinjiang? And if Chechnya is on the list, why not Tuva? And then if you're including all of those places, why not Quebec, or the Basque Country, or Kurdistan? And then from there it goes on and on and on. I'm sure you could argue all of those examples on their own merit, but there are dozens more where they came from. You're going to have to wade through all of those countries, picking and choosing the ones which fit your point of view. That leads to more arbitrary distinctions, and before you know it you have an inclusion criteria which is three miles long instead of just one.


 * Frankly, I think there's some value to a list of things which are casually called "countries". I'd probably work on that list if it existed. But I don't think this is that list. There are a lot of problems with this article -- not least of which is the fact that it has a title which doesn't really suit its content -- but the change you're suggesting is so radical that it destroys any utility that it might have had. Orange Tuesday (talk)


 * But do you see that there is nothing controversial or 'casual' about the Countries of the United Kingdom? They are the United Kingdom - it has no separate existence without them. I simply cannot see how they will 'open doors'. Your 'then this, then that' hypothesis needn't (and surely wouldn't) happen. We only need to stop at what are internationally recognised as constituent countries. The internationally recognised UK government describes Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as "countries within a country" (see UKCOUNTRYREFS). Can you say that of any you have listed above? The United Kingdom does not exist alongside its constituent countries - it IS its constituent countries. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In exactly the same way, the United States is its constituent states. I know you don't like the comparison, but I do think it's a fair one in the context of this list: the USA does not have any existence outside that which it has been given by its states.  Federal systems of government are not unusual, and the UK is hardly the only country in the world to have been formed by formerly independent countries banding together. Pfainuk talk 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm finding you a bit obtuse Pfainuk, I have to say, and some of the US states were very very far from being countries. They are quite a mix. I'll start a poll on this tomorrow, as I'm not having you two discriminate in this way! Think about it please. - we need only include what is recognised both within and without the state as a country of constituent countries. Neither of you have given me one similar example. There is only the UK, and the Netherlands to a lesser degree.


 * (And by the way, UKCOUNTRYREFS was made as quick answer to a particularly divisive and tiring form of troll that can occasionally plague UK articles, that tries to drum up Scottish nationalism (for example) by claiming that Scotland cannot call itself a country (it does of course, as do we all - see Scotland, Wales, England, Northern Ireland - which should be recognised here). The sources are not attempting to 'prove' anything that most of the educated world doesn't already know. Hiding the UK country reality here actually only helps those nationalists who are prepared to troll to push their agenda, as they use anything they can find to asist themselves. In short - this article isn't helping a perfectly legal defined and fully recognised union of countries by stopping short here!) --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're arguing against an argument that hasn't been made. I've never said these four don't call themselves countries, and I don't believe Orange Tuesday has.  I said that they don't meet the criteria that are in place, and that I see good reasons for the criteria to remain as they are but no good reasons to change.  Any list has to have criteria that are applied consistently to decide "this is an X" and "this is not an X".  I cannot see that an adequate criterion could be reached that would include S/E/W/NI without including some other area or giving an increase in leverage to nationalist POV pushers from wherever else in the world, even if I thought that they belonged in the list (which I do not).


 * You are also, I believe, falling foul of the no true Scotsman fallacy. It appears that any federation that does not meet a set of criteria, subjectively applied, is not a similar case.  The US started out as a federation of thirteen very different colonies that were independent of one another, if subject to the same colonial power.  The European settlement may be rather younger, but there are nonetheless some quite strong cultural differences between states.  Other examples of countries formed from smaller independent parts who united together include Austria, Germany, Italy and Switzerland.  On the disruption front these are not the cases I am concerned about (though note per my message below that States of Germany and Austria are called "Countries" in German): far more likely and made harder to fend off would be cases like Tibet and Chechenya.


 * Remember that polling is no substitute for discussion. To quote, If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.  I believe this is the case here, and thus that a poll is more likely to delay consensus than to help us find it. Pfainuk talk 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comment and your rename proposal, Orange Tuesday. I perhaps used the wrong word when I said "arbitrary" earlier, but the point remains that we do have to have a limit, as you say. Pfainuk talk 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for an article rename if you can find one (or even a revert to ISO sovereign-only standards), but isn't List of sovereign states and dependent territories just a bit similar to List of sovereign states, which also branches out in that way? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, it's similar. But that's because the two lists cover similar ground. It's just one of them contains dependent territories and one does not. Might as well change the title to reflect that fact. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ I am getting a bit concerned here with the comments from Orange Tuesday an Pfainuk. It looks like a case of We are happy with the list and don't want to change it so how can we justify that decision. It is very clear that the various US states have with a few exceptions (Vermont, Texas) have not been countries in the past and they have no status as such. On the other hand England, Wales and Scotland have all been independent countries at some point in this history and are designated as such now by the UK Government with Wales and Scotland having self government equal to, or greater than other countries on this list. As far as I know Germany does not call Bavaria a country on the official Government web site, while the UK does. Pfainuk when you said "arbitrary" I think you had it right. You are arguing by analogy not by citation - Matt has it right here.

So we can cite authorities to show that Wales, Scotland & England are countries and this is a list of countries. There are no authorities to state that Bavaria or the US states are countries so that analogy fails. Given that there is a list of sovereign countries I am starting to think that maybe renaming is a mistake and we should instead sort this out now. -- Snowded  TALK  06:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why can it not be assumed that my intentions are what I say they are: that I see little benefit to the proposed change as far as I know it (it still isn't entirely clear what change there would be to the inclusion criteria, and without knowing that it is impossible to say exactly what the impact would be on other countries) and a fair few downsides? If different arguments are made, then different responses are going to be made as well.  If the criteria is that it has to be called a "country" by authorities, then why exactly wouldn't we include the Loire Country, the Basque Country or the States of Germany?


 * Let me explain that last one by noting that the German word "Land" means "country", so when in English we refer to these as States, Germany officially refers to them as "Countries" (Länder). Bavaria itself tends to prefer the word "state" (Staat) since its official name is the "Free State of Bavaria" (Freistaat Bayern), but this Bavarian government page, for example, uses the word "Land" frequently in reference to Bavaria.  The same applies to Austria.  The colloquial name, Bundesland, is still literally "Federal country".  And don't forget that independent countries such as Israel refer to themselves officially as "states". Pfainuk talk 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Minor correction on a point of fact: turns out on further reading that the balance of official and colloquial usage is slightly different between Germany and Austria. Makes no difference to my argument (it's still "country" vs. "federal country" in both Germany and Austria) but I felt I should note that the two usages are not identical. Pfainuk talk 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If Puerto Rico is listed, why wouldn't England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland? -Rrius (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Or Saint Barthélemy - it is an overseas collectivity of France, somehow belonging to the EU, despite being in the Caribbean. As it is not a European Union member state, it cannot belong to the EU and be an independant state.
 * Or Hong Kong - China operates a "one country, two systems" policy, the UK government  consider Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England to be countries within a country
 * Or Akrotiri & Dhekelia - these are only military bases under British sovereignty. They aren't even considered to be colonial territories. That they are considered to be countries is absurd.
 * Or Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - diplomatic recognition from only one state (Turkey). Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England are also recognised to be countries by a state - the UK government. etc., etc ... Daicaregos (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The title of this article is perfectly adequate. I would oppose any proposed name change. The article list you seem to want to create already exists. It is List of sovereign states and Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England neither appear on, nor qualify for it. They do, however, qualify for inclusion in this article. At some point, at the end of the section 'Types of political entities included' someone arbitrarily decided to include the paragraph: 'In the 'Entities not included', an outline is given on the entities not included in this list. This includes distinct political and legal entities which are known as countries, but are integral parts of a sovereign state also termed a country - notably the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.' All we need to do is to agree to remove this paragraph and the countries of Wales, Northern Ireland Scotland and England can be included. It is that simple. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If we were simply to remove that section, our inclusion criteria would not change. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not independent states (recognised or not), dependent territories or areas of special sovereignty, so they would still not belong in the list.  No, a new criterion would have to be written to include these four that would then have to be consistently applied across the board.  Without inclusion criteria - without limits of some kind on what the list includes, consistently applied - a list ceases to have any meaning.  What is your proposed criterion that would include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Pfainuk talk 11:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is starting to look like stonewalling, given all that has been written above. I'm creating a proposal:- we keep the current title (there is no reason at all to change it, other than to effectively keep out the UK countries), and we include constituent countries that are defined as such by the unifying sovereign state. I won't bother with adding international acceptance as a criteria, as that is simply a given when the unifying sovereign state describes them as countries. By the same token, I won't add the need for scores of reliable sources (though of course we have them).


 * Defining 'constituent countries' in this simple and clear way, means we will only be adding the UK countries to the list - so the panic by two editors here is unwarranted. A number of editors above have now agreed that adding the countries of the UK is sensible given the existing criteria for including dependencies etc. It will also be directly in line with what England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all state in the opening line of their Wikipedia articles, which is important for the uniformity and stability of the project. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I object to your accusation of stonewalling. I find it ironic that editors complain that they were offended by the course of an argument, by being addressed as a group rather than individually, but are then happy to send such accusations flying.  Did you even notice that I have been following your request and putting my comments directly after the comment where they were made?  That this was not the only response I made this morning?  Perhaps you can now see why I prefer to write comments as a group rather than as individual responses.  In the case of this edit, the comment argued to include these four without changing the inclusion criteria.  I pointed out why this makes no sense.


 * You should understand that, per my comments above, your criterion does not only include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but also the German and Austrian Länder (lit. "countries") and possibly other areas. I also wish to make it clear, per my opposition to your suggestion of a poll above, that Polling is not a substitute for discussion and that I feel in no way bound to accept any majority decision as decided by a poll here. Pfainuk talk 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to include constituent countries
We include, 'constituent countries that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state'.

Giving Aland as an reference, we would use the format:


 * Åland – Åland Islands (Autonomous province of Finland)


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England - England (constituent country of the United Kingdom)


 * Defined in this manner, it will only mean adding the UK countries to the list (given its current criteria of including dependencies).


 * It is simple: International acceptance and reliable sources could be added, but needn't be, as sovereign acceptance is enough.


 * It will also be directly in line with what England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales all state in the opening line of their Wikipedia articles, which is important for the both the uniformity and actual stability of the project.


 * support --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * support -- Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England are countries. The article 'List of countries' should include them. Daicaregos (talk) 13:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * support -- The UK government say they are countries, individual wiki articles say they are countries, therefore they should be included. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my previous arguments. I note again per two of my comments above that Polling is not a substitute for discussion and that this poll is very premature.  I note that I will not accept a majority in this poll as creating any kind of consensus, and that if a majority or even a supermajority supports, I will not consider that to be a consensus in favour (again, per WP:POLL, consensus is not involuntary).  And I note, on a more substantial issue and per three of my comments above, that this criterion, if applied consistently, would add rather more than four countries to this list. Pfainuk talk 13:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A large majority over a reasonable time will certainly mean change. We have all of us been through our points to the stage that we are simply repeating our arguments (not something I personally enjoy being made to do over and over) - therefore it is clearly a time to advance. I would prefer not polling, but you are very entrenched (and we are now all repeating ourselves, as I have said), so it has simply become the clearest way forward. In my experience, many people who don't want change are happy to stonewall forever, therefore polls are a simply inevitable in some cases. I saw no reason to carry on the above myself, but further discussion could be below if you wish.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not agree. I still object to your accusation of stonewalling, particularly since you have spectacularly failed to answer several pertinent points here.  This discussion has been ongoing for - what - 42 hours?  And it's not much more than 24 hours since the first user called for the inclusion of these four in the article.  Yes, this is extraordinarily premature.


 * On polling, I quote WP:!VOTE in response to what you've just written:
 * Article straw polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus.
 * If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.
 * Straw polls may never be understood as creating a consensus, but merely as one tool in developing a mutual and voluntary consensus.


 * You are claiming the opposite of all three of these principles by saying that you intend this poll to create a consensus. Instead, you are slowing down the process of finding consensus.  Discussion should continue.  There may be other solutions that we have not yet talked about - the discussion so far has been rather all or nothing, probably because we haven't had time to do much else.  There is no need to run roughshod over Wiki principles: the discussion should continue so that we can find a proper consensus.  It isn't as if we are on a deadline. Pfainuk talk 14:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is simply a straight lie to say I have "spectacularly ignored" anything. Your taste for these tactics (and lack of new arguments) are one of the reasons I polled when I did. I have addressed all your examples - none would pass through the criteria I have written above. I know very well what is written about polls, I have been part of many in my time on Wikipedia. I'm afraid you cannot use the above sensible warnings about them to block a clear consensus (which never has to be a 100%, by the way). A debate on polls should be in the Discussion below, so we don't lose sight of the polling. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's gotta be a way to compromise, between these exclusionist & inclusionist views. Perhaps combining Pfainuk & Matt's proposals below, is the answer. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll be able to point out, in that case, where you've told me how the Austrian and German Länder (lit. "countries") are not "defined as unified countries by [Germany/Austria]". I've mentioned it several times now and have not noticed a response.  This word is not just used in passing, it's used throughout the German constitution.  I haven't found a searchable copy of the Austrian constitution yet, but States of Austria says that that document uses it as well.


 * I don't know what you mean by my "taste for these tactics", but to be honest I don't really care. I think the poll was premature and has hindered, not helped, us in trying to get consensus.  I think consensus is possible.  Let's discuss. Pfainuk talk 19:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I dismissed the Bundelander above for certain. They are simply not seen as 'countries' in the way you are suggesting (whatever the route of the word - it's just semantics). I just can't see what you are so worried about with Germany (or Austria)! They really won't bother this article, they have no reason too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the first time you've responded to the fact that they are called "countries" in German. But whether or not they are seen as "countries" is not part of your proposed criterion.  Whether or not they are called "countries" by their home government is.  And they are.  It's not just semantics, it's the limit you propose for new additions to this article.  If we are to make such a fundamental change to the article, we should at least do so consistently, and if we use your criteria then the German Länder belong in the article. Pfainuk talk 21:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't been following me then. I have said above that Germany bundelander argument wouldn't work. Lander means 'land' - it is not 'country' at all, even in the varied sense we mean it. The Germans have their own meaning for lander, and most of them would be horrified at all this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I support Pfainuk's stances all along. The words have little to do, countries or Länder. In Switzerland, they are called cantons (and half-cantons), yet another word, there are 26 of them and they are really constituent of the Swiss Confederation. According to Matt's and others' theories, they would all deserve an entry on the same grounds as Wales and Scotland. The list would become useless. Clpda (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think country and Lander mean the same you are simply mistaken. Lander means land - Germany does not suggest they are significantly separate in identity to Germany the way the UK does with UK countries here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The German words for land and country are the same. (For example, the German Wikipedia page for Scotland says "Schottland ist ein Land im Nordwesten Europas") Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is Land, not lander - and it is more flexible, which is why we translate it as 'land' rather than 'country'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, I'm pretty sure Lander is the plural of Land.


 * I don't know who that was, but they're right. Land is the singular, Länder the plural, of the same German word.  Taking the translation here, one would rather doubt that a German would interpret "Schottland ist ein Land im Nordwesten Europas" as "Scotland is a piece of real estate in Northwestern Europe" or "Scotland is ground (as opposed to sea) in Northwestern Europe". Pfainuk talk 00:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That was me, sorry. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I accept it's a plural, but you are missing my point. (and I'm not happy at all that this poll has been pushed upwards like this - I made a discussion section for this). It is still absurd to suggest the Lander are defined or treated in the same way as constituent countries. It is clearly a more flexible word even than 'country' is. And this is the English language Wikipedia - something you are not taking into account: Translations are simply odious. I still find the argument a rude one - there is no evidence or reason we would have a "flood of Lander" if constituent countries are included via a state-driven definition. Lander can easily stay in the 'not included' list below and no-one will mind, or have any argument even if the did. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your criterion was not areas "...that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state and that people might complain about", nor was it areas "...that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state and that are treated as the same way as constituent countries" (a notion that is interestingly ambiguous).  It was not areas "...that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state and that seem to fit on to the list", nor "...that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state and that don't seem daft alongside all these independent countries".


 * The criterion proposed was areas "...that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state". And it would be entirely inconsistent to only apply this criterion to the English-speaking world.  The only word used in German law and the German constitution for the states of Germany is (the German word for) "country".  Therefore German states clearly meet your proposed criterion for inclusion. Pfainuk talk 14:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Proposal to include constituent countries
England, Wales, Scotland & Northern Ireland should be included only if they're presented as subordinate to the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A number of them have qualifiers. Giving Aland as an reference, we would use:


 * Åland – Åland Islands (Autonomous province of Finland)


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England - England (constituent country of the United Kingdom)


 * What do you think? --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The new intro would read,

This list of countries, arranged alphabetically, gives an overview of countries of the world. It includes territories that are independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty. It also includes constituent countries that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state.

As the paragraph was a long sentence, I've appended the new line as a second sentence at the end. The could be a case for re-writing the intro, but that could be complicating things given that the article is protected as it is. It is simplest just to append the line.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If they have to be included - and I don't see that they do - they should be included as a separate list.


 * If we were to take this proposal from the last archive (which was generally supported but never actually implemented because we got bogged down in Western Sahara), it would perhaps be possible to add a "subdivisions" field and put these four - along with Länder (as I say, literally "Countries") of Germany and Austria and federal subjects, dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty belonging to other countries in there. That would put these on the list but not on a level par with the UK and other sovereign states.  It'd be a major reorganisation, but I think it would be doable. Pfainuk talk 14:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That too is acceptable, both here & for List of flags by country (though that's another article, of course). GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would accept Matt Lewis's proposal in principle. However, for one of the examples, above, I propose a slightly amended qualifier, in accordance with agreements reached on the UK country pages:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England - England (country of the United Kingdom)

A separate listing is unacceptable. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At least we're getting somewhere folks. PS- I hope whatever compromise is adopsted here, will be adopted at List of flags by country. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One article at a time GoodDay, List of flags by country is a seperate issue. Matt Lewis's proposal is acceptable. As for whether it should state constituent country or country, I have no strong feeling either way. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Just excited about the possibilities. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to fundamentally alter the inclusion criteria to allow for areas normally considered a fundamental part of another country (as opposed to areas not considered a fundamental part but under the sovereignty of some country), we should make obvious that the additions are administrative divisions. For the case of the U.K., the entries for England, etc. should be under the entry for UK and not be listed as separate entries. Note that except for the unrecognized de facto independent states, all entries on this article are listed on the ISO list of countries, which was the original basis for this list. As far as I can tell, England, etc. have never been listed on the ISO list. --Polaron | Talk 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Scotland
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Wales
 * Jumpers, that looks like my proposal at List of flags by country. Ahh, great minds think alike. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You may have misunderstood the proposal. It is not about bringing in fundamental changes for administrative divisions, it is just about including constituent countries, which will allow for the UK countries, and that's it. I think the above would look very odd when the dependencies are all listed as individual identities: you would surely have to follow the system uniformly. Or doing something like at List of sovereign states. But I don't understand why this has be made so complicated. It's only about including UK's constituent countries (which would sit very neatly with all the other additions) - we are not suggesting turning the world upside down! Nobody claimed England etc was in the ISO list of sovereign states. According to Pfainuk, this article hasn't been only the ISO list for years (though I always thought it was, I must admit).--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Looking through the history, I can't find any evidence that it was originally based on the ISO. The ISO list is at ISO_3166-1.  If this list was based on the ISO, it wasn't cited as such when it was first written.  That doesn't mean that ISO plus unrecognised states isn't a good inclusion criterion - it probably would be IMO.


 * I won't accept these four listed alongside the independent countries with separate entries on the list. That doesn't mean that the dependent territories and HK/Macao/Åland/Svalbard have to be given separate entries either - we can list these with or alongside the E/S/W/NI and other administrative divisions - but we would have to move the dependent territories, not simply add E/S/W/NI on separate lines.


 * The table proposal I noted earlier is, IMO, a good starting point. We can work on it - we can reorganise it such that dependent territories, areas of special sovereignty (excluding the Palestinian Territories) and administrative divisions are included underneath their parent countries, either in a separate column or ordered below the parent country.


 * I won't accept any inclusion criterion that is not consistently and impartially applied for every country. If there is no change to the inclusion criteria, I will not accept a change to add these fundamental divisions of sovereign countries.  The criterion up for discussion at the moment includes, so far as I can tell, England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the German and Austrian Länder - though there may be some that I am missing.  If we were to restrict this only to these 4 cases or these 29 cases (16 German Länder, 9 Austrian), people would ask why other areas - US States, Canadian Provinces and so on - are not included, and they would have a fair point.  If we have to do this, we should do it across the board from the start.  If necessary, we can rename the article to fit the list - indeed that, as a solution, would appear to solve the concerns raised without need for any alteration.


 * Frankly, for reasons which I have stated, I think all of this is likely to cause more problems than it is likely to solve: I think any change to the inclusion criteria would be a mistake. But I'm willing to try to get consensus. Pfainuk talk 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * But nobody calls the Bundelander, or USA states "countries". You are worrying over nothing! If a maverick came along who wanted Texas included because Scotland is, he would never get consensus would he? If a German ever came along grumbling about Bavaria I'd buy you a drink. Besides - they are simply not "constituent countries that are defined as unified countries by the sovereign state" (the proposed new criteria). Germany or the US do not call their states or lander "countries" - they are so different to England etc, that they simply will in no way as feel as 'hard done by' as you fear. Nobody can argue with the description given by the UK government - it is a sovereign state, and all its constituent countries were originally fully independent countries (or part of one with regards to Northern Ireland).


 * The table could be a good idea, but won't change anything regarding allowing constituent countries. Including dependencies might make the table a little complicated (re EU flags etc) - it would be unfair to blame that on a few constituent countries!-Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya know somethin'? things were alot easier when England, Scotland, Northern Ireland & Wales were called constituent countries. Since being changed to countries, an un-intented result ocurred - they've been presented as equals to the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, nobody has claimed that the UK countries are "equal" to the UK's sovereignty here, have they? (ie effectively independent). And what difference would it make if they were still called 'constituent countries' in thier articles? None whatsoever - "constituent countries" is effectively the new criteria we are polling for! Their lack of equality compared to the UK dependencies is the rub here. Remember why all this started? (no, not just you being flighty!). This article contains UK dependencies, and they are hardly "equal" to the sovereignty of the UK themselves. If this article includes them, it is absurd that it leaves out the constituent countries.


 * Also, the UK countries, simply as a notable inclusion, lacked article-prominence that their notability requires too, which has been a problem here for a while. You yourself presumably didn't notice their presence. But that was Purileditor insisting they had no specific value at all. Encyclopedias have to be cleverer (and more honest) than that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC).
 * IMO, listing them in a way that doesn't present their subordination to the UK; is a false presentation. GoodDay (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England - England (constituent country of the United Kingdom) - but you do accept this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes & if it's adopted? I cancel supporting 'article split'. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with that is that it's NPOV. It implies that the constituent countries are somehow more special than all the other subnational entities in the world just because they're called "countries" in English. That's a very UK-Centric view. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (multiple ec) The word Land, plural Länder, is the German word for "country".


 * German law refers to the German states as Länder (countries). This word is the only one used for the states in the German constitution.  In Austria, the constitution refers (apparently) both to Länder and Bundesländer, but Länder is the more common variant colloquially.  So, yes, Germany does indeed call its states "countries".


 * Wikipedia is not an exercise in doing what you can get away with. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.  We should be working to avoid systematic bias, and we should not be treating any country as a special case.  Would a user get consensus to include Texas if England, Scotland, Wales and NI were included?  That shouldn't even be a question here.  It's not about whether consensus seems likely, it's about whether the criteria are fair to all countries, avoiding bias.  I rather think systematic bias in favour of the UK would be a pretty strong argument in that case. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (correction) The word Land, plural Länder, is the German word for "land".


 * e/c I find your word-semantics argument with Germany actually genuinely foolish, to be frank with you. Stop and think. Do you have any sense of irony? You are off the scale. Germany simply does NOT see it's 'lander' as countries in the way this article uses the term. For crying out loud - take a step back. Do you really think they will be knocking at you door if you let in the UK countries? Don't be so bloody daft, man. You are far to close to this article, and I notice you have compared Wales to US states etc in the past. I suggest your get off you personal hobby horse and look for some balance. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about getting thing right. I had a very quick wiki search on the first few names on this list, Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Aland Islands, American Samoa and Aguilla, none of whom are termed countries by wiki. Does anyone else see the problem here? A wiki article called List of countries (no matter the criteria someone has added) contradicting itself so badly that it would leave the general reader so confused they wouldn't know which article was right. Then we have other countries who's article confirm them as countries with a whole batch of references to back it up being told they don't qualify. Confusing indeed. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, not just confusing. There is no 'systematic bias in favour of the UK' in the proposal to include Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England in this article. Rather, there is currently a systematic bias against the countries of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland & England by not including them in an article named 'List of countries'. Have you not noticed how ridiculous that is? Daicaregos (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article does not contradict itself - it clearly sets out its inclusion criteria and it applies them. If the name of the article is a problem, we can rename it, as was proposed above. Pfainuk talk 21:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a criteria personal to you, that omits something you have bee in your bonnet about. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a set of criteria that has been used on this list since it was created, and that I happen to think make for a logical and worthwhile list. I would like to preserve them if possible, or failing that to ensure that Wikipedia's principles of neutrality are upheld.  There are several lists of countries about, and that if we are to have this list at all (and ideally I think we should) we need to ensure that it has specific criteria for inclusion and sticks to them as closely and consistently as possible.  Those are my motivations.  It is neither helpful nor necessary for you to question them. Pfainuk talk 21:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is not a bias against the United Kingdom in this article. It accurately lists the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a single country, which it is. This list is marked as one of the best on wikipedia, it would be wrong to alter it because of certain people who have their own agendas. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut the 'agenda' rubbish. As yet (in all seriousness) no-one in here really does but you (Mr new account).
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England - England (constituent country of the United Kingdom) What is wrong with that? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly suspect this article has changed a number of times since it became a 'featured list'!! People have been proposing more radical changes than I have - it's not been comfortable for a while, it seems.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been a few minor and specific changes. Serbia and Montenegro was split up into two separate entries (because the country dissolved), Saint Barthelemy and Saint-Martin were added (because they were split off from Guadeloupe) and Kosovo was upgraded from UN Protectorate to unrecognized state (because it declared independence). The only change that didn't accompany a real world change in status was the merging of Akrotiri and Dhekelia into a single entry. That's it. The body of the list has remained the same since then. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(break..) Discussion on Proposal to include constituent countries
Matt Lewis, I don't believe that your proposal is being made in the spirit of NPOV. You seem to have started from the conclusion that the UK is special and that its constituent countries belong on the list and then worked backwards from that to come with a suitably restrictive addition to the inclusion criteria.

I am opposed to the inclusion of the "areas of special sovereignty" for the same reason. It seems like some editor came up with four territories that they wanted on the list and then came up with a category to put them in. I can't see how they're different from regular autonomous areas. If we want this list to have evenly applied standards, we need to take out exceptions like that.

Including regular dependencies, on the other hand, is perfectly consistent with the current list. The Falkland Islands are not a part of the UK. Scotland is. We don't need to mention Scotland again, because it's already included (in a sense) as part of another entity. Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest those that have a problem with England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland being added to this list take a look at those wiki pages. Some time ago they were listed as "Constituent countries" but they are now just listed as countries. It seems wrong that they are described as such if they can not fit the terms to be added to this list. Clearly people from the UK have strong feelings about this issue, those seeking to destroy it and have independent countries and those who support the union. There needs to be an international look at this issue to see if such pages are accurate. I would just like to point out at no time in history has there been a country called "Northern Ireland" which makes the idea of calling all 4 countries totally crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BritishWatcher (talk • contribs) 21:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello BritishWatcher. I'm curious, why are you watching us? Titch Tucker (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The UK government calles Northen Ireland a "country" - they split Ireland into two countries. The fact that some poeple call it a 'province' is neither here not there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Titch, somebody has to watch everyone, especially when there are certain people who attempt to destroy a country through the backdoor by altering and describing parts of the United Kingdom in certain ways that are wrong. The change from Constituent Country to just "country" on the England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland pages are unacceptable and inaccurate. Now those very same people attempt to have these regions of the United Kingdom added to this list aswell. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are putting "(United Kingdom)" in brackets, so what really is your problem? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assure you I have no desire to destroy any country. Even if those articles were called constituent countrys (I don't care either way) they would have to be included in this list as they are termed countries within a country. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I was not naming any names, but there are some people with an agenda. The mention of those not included underneath the main list, including constituent countries of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is more than adequate. I just hope those who believe the list should remain as it is take a look at the individual wiki pages for those constituent countries and attempt to undo the inaccurate labelling of them as “countries” which is clearly misleading and wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't work out what you mean, but this seems like a good place to say that I am a well know Brit!! As British as they come - I would hate to see a fully devolved UK. I am also prolific, experienced, and 100% serious, and I insist on consistency and fairness on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at any official list of countries as tabulated by an international organization (UN, ICANN, IOC, ISO, etc.) or even other widely cited lists of countries (e.g. CIA Fact Book) and see what they include. Has any such list ever included the UK consituent countries? --Polaron | Talk 22:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If they are listing sovereign states then they will obviously only stick to them. The country article states that the word can mean sovereign states and non-sovereign countries. Some lists do add a note on the UK constituent countries, some don't. Please read Countries of the United Kingdom on ISO. It's rather painfully obvious I feel, that many lists and suchlike highlight the distinction, because a lot of the world mistakenly calls the United Kingdom 'England' rather than 'Britain'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed 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 closed with no consesnsus to move (and the converstaion has moved on see  below) -- PBS (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Move List of countries to List of sovereign states and dependent territories

Okay, I guess I might as well officially propose this move. I've explained my reasons before, but let me run over them briefly:

Basically, the problem with trying to create a definitive list of countries is that there is no standard definition of country. Some people say that only independent states are countries, and some say that England counts, and some say that Tibet counts, but the key is that none of them are necessarily right or wrong. There's no "best" definition of the word country. No single NPOV encyclopedic standard that we can turn to.

Right now we use the word "country" as a short-hand term that basically means "all the stuff that is currently on this list". And this is fine for people trying to create a list that basically looks like the one we have now. There are a few inconsistencies, but the list is reasonable and its inclusion criteria basically makes sense. However, by using the word country, we come into conflict with those people who just want to make a list of things which they call countries. These two groups are approaching the list from two totally different angles, and there's just no single place where they meet up. And that's how we get giant disputes like the one above and the Western Sahara dispute from a few months back.

Giving this page a more precise name would end the squabbling over the inclusion criteria, because the inclusion criteria would be right there in the name. We know how many sovereign states there are and how many dependent territories there are. We don't have to argue over what counts and what doesn't. The only thing left will be to tweak the finer details, like Svalbard or the uninhabited dependencies.

That's why I think this page should be named List of sovereign states and dependent territories. List of countries should be made into a kind of glorified disambiguation page. Maybe something like that disclaimer at the top. Then we can have a link to this list, a link to the sovereign states list, and perhaps even a link to a new list that includes the constituent countries of the UK, and all those other ones at that. (List of entities commonly known as countries, maybe? I'd be interested in working on that.)

Comments? Orange Tuesday (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- There is no reason to change the name of this article, only to change the constituent parts of the list, so that those entities that are known as countries are included on an article entitled 'List of countries'. If Tibet, for example, is a country it should be included. If you want a list of sovereign states then why not use the article entitled List of sovereign states? Daicaregos (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

*Support -- Its a valid suggestion and would reduce the dispute on this specific page, however it will not resolve the problem across wikipedia, where some pages label a country as one thing and others label Northern Ireland a country for example (which is just plain wrong). The term country should be that as defined by international law, the United Nations and other international organisations, rather than simply appeasing those who seek to give statehood to regions of internationally recognised countries. However your suggestion is far better, more acceptable and accurate than the idea of including regions on this list of countries BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * *Oppose -- After seeing how many other lists there are on wikipedia using the term country, it would be wrong to have to alter all of those other lists just because of a limited number of disagreements on this page, in particular about the United Kingdom. I have there for striked my previous support for the suggestion and now oppose the move. The article should remain the way it is now, with the United Kingdom listed as a country, and the "countries of the UK" England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scoland mentioned underneath the list in the exceptions as it is currently. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. The fact is, the word "country" is pretty ambiguous, generally speaking.  It is impossible to precisely define whether a given entity is in fact "country" given this vagueness, particularly in the more borderline cases, and it would be better not imply that any specific list is a definitive list of countries.  This list has reasonable criteria for inclusion, but it suffers from being at this name. Pfainuk talk 22:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. It's time to end this stalemate. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose -- I can't help feeling the proposal to change the name of the article is a way of keeping certain countries off the list. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look in Archive 3 you'll see that I was suggesting this idea long before the current dispute came up. Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Then my apologies, I shall strike my statement. I shall still oppose on the grounds List of countries is still a valuable article that should include the countries discussed. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question If the move proceeds, would unrecognized de facto independent states and areas of special sovereignty (e.g. Hong Kong) be removed? These are neither sovereign states nor dependent territories. --Polaron | Talk 23:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current inclusion criteria would be unchanged unless there was a wide consensus to change it. The unrecognized states would be counted under "sovereign states" (which isn't unprecedented, they're listed on the main list of sovereign states). As for Hong Kong, etc., I don't personally like them on the list, but I didn't choose the name just to exclude them. I just couldn't think of a good way to include them in the name without making it sound overly long. Anyway, I'm sure you could make the argument that they qualify as dependent territories. And we could always put a note in the lead section explaining their presence. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose' BritishWatcher opened his account for all this today, so I'm certainly not accepting his deliberately offensive and personalised arguments as a reason for anything! I prefer Pfainuk's table ideas. Moving won't help anything - it's a sideways solution that doesn't address a single problem that we have. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with similar views as Pfainuk and BritishWatcher. Clpda (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose just clean up the list, and create a separate one for country-like entities that don't fit on existing lists. 76.66.193.170 (talk) 03:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose its premature, the first debate is on what is or is not a country.  The issue of the various countries of Britain and their status has been resolved and there are multiple citations etc that clearly establish that they are countries.  Some of the dependent territories have less autonomy than Scotland and Wales.  That debate needs to be structured and may need to go to mediation  as I don't see the actual arguments been handled and (yet again) we have the emergence of a newly created editor pursuing the "they are not countries" argument, an all too common pattern. -- Snowded   TALK  05:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowed i dispute the fact the status of "countries" of Britain has been resolved. There are endless questions on the different wiki pages about why these places are called "country" by MANY people and that debate continues. The fact so many people have a problem with the term goes to show this issue has not been resolved and the attempt to have those added to this list has clearly back fired. A debate about the status of the internal makeup of the United Kingdom has lead to the possibly changing on this lists title, a list which has been around for a long time. Just because something was decided by some people previously, does not mean there will be mutual agreement on it in the future. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can dispute it all you want, but until you find new evidence, or citations to match the table produced last time you have no evidence. You might also want to look at the OED definition below.  Try and work with evidence BritishWatcher, it will help.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This "endless/many people question it" comment is completely exaggerated and fully misleading, as it is never about actual debate! It is questioned from time to time, but nearly always by trolls, or later-proven sockpuppets. You yourself are a two-day-old WP:SPA, BritishWatcher. Those few who do genuinely question it (nearly always after seeing comments like your misinforming one above) are appeased very quickly. There is simply no 'on going' debate on the matter at all. The UK is a sovereign state, and it calls itself "countries within a country" (see UKCOUNTRYREFS). As British citizens also describe their countries as "countries", there is simply nowhere you can propely debate. There is ony the occasional oddball extremism, and arguments that constitute "But it doesn't make it right!", which Wikipedia is full of, alas. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of sovereign states --PBS (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it is in my opinion that there has been endless debate and that many people question it. AS with the subject on the term country, peoples views are different. I did not start the questions on other pages about if such places were a country and there are many arhived comments on the same question nor was i the first to disagree with them being added to this list of countries.  I have laid out my main problem and opinion on the Scotland talk page, in response to your comment. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.

Other wiki pages use of the term Country
Following the outcome of the debate on this page, if it is decided that England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland should not be classed as "countries" on this list, could we please have corrections made on the wiki page for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland removing the term "country" and replacing it with something more appropriate such as Constituent Country. If its not good enough to make this list is should NOT be described as such on other pages. Scotland and England use to be "countries", Northern Ireland has NEVER been a country so that wiki page is clearly misleading and inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BritishWatcher (whoever you are) - you opened your account today (during this discusion, in fact) and have been kicking up sand on the UK issue all day. I don't know who you are yet, but I am certain you know who you are offending, how you are offending, and the kind of fight you are trying to start. I urge others not to let this all get out of hand. Believe me, when 'new accounts' start happening, it can. There is a clear problem with this article - the inconsistency within it creates a vaccum - and that vaccum is where the troubles appear. No vacuum, no trouble. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * i am sorry Matt Lewis i do not seek to offend anyone i simply want Wikipedia pages to be as accurate as possible. It is true i registered today because i saw this debate and others on different pages taking place, but i have been watching such conversations for some time. In my opinion and in the opinion of international organiastions the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a country. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are NOT. Some may find what i say offensive, well i am truely sorry for that but i am offended when i see my country (the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) misrepresented and wrongly described on one of the most visited websites on the internet... It troubles me. Until the people of Scotland, or other parts of the United Kingdom vote to leave the United Kingdom, they are all part of ONE country. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On a personal note BW, I agree with your views. However, what one wants & what's been decided are different things. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Given the conversation we just had at my talk GoodDay, you have just said everything I need to know about you. As for you, 'BW' - I'm sure you have already seen UKCOUNTRYREFS. Decent people have put hours into that for the likes of you. The UK government calls itself a 'countries within a country' - if a sovereign state says it you simply have to accept it. I'm as British as you can get, but people like you make me cringe.


 * countries within a country


 * The United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I want the answer. But, what is it you know all about me, Matt? GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt, I think the problem here is that you perceive a vacuum where others do not. Everyone has an understanding of what constitutes a country, but those understandings don't necessarily agree, and if you change the definition to satisfy one group, you're going to create new groups who perceive different vacuums and then the discussion will happen all over again. I mean, this page was a stable featured article for years with its current contents. Do you think all these editors just overlooked the constituent countries? No. They had a specific definition which doesn't agree with your point of view. Just changing things to your definition isn't going to magically resolve all the disputes.


 * And BritishWatcher, we don't use wikipedia pages as sources for other wikipedia pages. If you want to change terminology on the constituent country pages, take it up on those pages or with the appropriate WikiProjects. This page is for discussion of this article. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The vacuum is clearly in the groups of criteria included and excluded being clearly unequal. I have never redefined the word "country". You said yourself you don't like one of the criteria - this is my point. It causes a hole, a tear, a rift, a vacuum - do you see my point? If you knew of the UK issues (you must respect my experience) then you would know. We could be lucky that many people are in the projects right now. I knew a new account of some sort would be made today, and when I saw this one at Scotland I was simply waiting for it to pop up here. If you take me on my word for that, you might see my point a bit better. I've got a million better things to do than be here right now, but I know that if the UK is unfairly represented in some way, problems arise. Whatever route is taken, this article simply needs to be addressed in some way.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt, I am sorry but I stand by my view of the definition of a country and it’s the one used by international organisations. Now I accept fully that people will have different points of views, but this issue of if a country is a country is a rather big one and shouldn’t just be left to a vote taken some time ago by a few people. The fact the regions of the UK are unable to be added to the current list of “countries” shows there is a problem.

Orange, I accept what you say and I will be taking up this issue further on the appropriate pages. I just thought as people have been discussing this issue on this page they might be interested in the use of the term “country” on those other wiki pages as well. Whilst wiki pages shouldn’t just source other pages there should be some form of unified understanding of the term. If country can not be defined well enough to keep this list, I can not see how it can be used on those other pages where there are also disputes. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're trying to restrict the word "country" to a single definition, you're not going to have much luck. There is no single definition. It means different things in different contexts. I mean, England is a country, whether or not it's on this list. I don't think you could really argue otherwise. Orange Tuesday (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I respect people have very different views of what a country is and consensus must be met. My comments on here have been because i strongly believe England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should not be listed as "countries" on such an international list, which is why i support your suggestion to rename the list. I dont seek to have "country" removed from the wikipage for England for example, what i do want is it replaced with "Constituent Country" (which is what it use to be) linking to the "Constituent country" article which gives a clear meaning of the term,(mainly talking about the UK) rather than just "country" which as you say there is no single definition for. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One element that defines a country is the political rights of its citizens and especially the highest/widest scale for which they may elect representatives. Texas and French Guiana could vote for the American and French presidents, respectively -> no separate entry; Puerto Rico and Saint-Barthélémy could not -> separate entry as dependent territory. With this view, Cymru (aka Wales) and other UK “countries” being able to send MPs to Westminster have no reason to appear on the list. This short definition is of course not enough: one has (at least for the moment) to make an exception for the EU, otherwise it would make a single entry since all EU citizens may elect MEPs, and this will not work for non-democratic places. But that would solve the UK issue and avoid a flood of Länder and cantons. Clpda (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A flood of Lander and cantons? Sorry - that is completely pie in the sky. Lander especially. A really wild thing to say. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

"If country can not be defined well enough to keep this list, I can not see how it can be used on those other pages where there are also disputes." (BritishWatcher). I hate to say "I told you so!" We need to patch those holes! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Clpda, you can't undefine a country as a country because it can also elect representatives to another legislation. You make the argument yourself by referencing the EU.  You are attempting to create a definition to support the current list, rather than arguing the case per se.  I still haven't seen anyone address the issue that the Welsh and Scottish Assemblies have more autonomy than the governments of other "countries" on this list.  Also Saint-Barthélemy is an administrative region of France, listed up there with Paris and the other communes, so you are not being consistent in supporting the status quo.  -- Snowded   TALK  12:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your 1st point (looking for a definition matching the current list instead of the other way round). The idea behind was that (despite the lengthy lists of inclusions and non-inclusion) one or a few criteria must have been more or less implicitly accepted to allow this list to be fairly stable over the years and the number of dispute remaining small. Sometimes, one forgets to state the obvious. I can't comment your 2nd point, as I don't know enough about the prerogatives of the devolved parliaments. I disagree with your 3rd point: referencing administration is much worse than political rights, because the various administrative domains (taxes, social security, and many secondary matters such as car registration to get a number plate) have very frequently a different territorial division. So a place could be treated as a separate entity for one administrative domain and a constituent part of the 'main' country for another. Clpda (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Falklands, for one, has rather more power delegated to it than Scotland and Wales, as I said when you first asked: whereas I was quoted a rather long list of powers of the Scottish parliament, I noted that the Falklands have autonomy in all areas except foreign affairs and defence. This includes things such as immigration policy (British citizens and other BOT citizens do not have the automatic right to settle on the Falklands) and fiscal policy (the Falklands have the right to use their own currency, regulate their own banks and suchlike).  Even when the UK government puts obligations on the FIG (by treaty or whatever), the FIG decides how to meet those obligations rather than having this decided in Westminster.  I'm having difficulty finding out the precise status of the French collectivités d'outre mer, but aside that they are not integral parts of France, I do not see this is immediately relevant in any case: unless you are proposing that we base inclusion on this list on the amount of autonomy an area has (and in that case US States would come a fair way before E/S/W/NI in the queue) this is all pretty irrelevant to the discussion. Pfainuk talk 14:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The UK's immigration policy is constrained by the EU, Scotland has its own legal system (and can print its own bank notes). I could go on dominion by dominion, country by country, the point is there are no hard and fast rules. .  I am not suggesting that the list is based on the degree of autonomy, but pointing out that arguments based on autonomy to exclude Wales/Scotland are not consistent with the treatment of dominions.  If the list is a list of countries, then all countries should be included, its that simple.  The OED definition of country includes Wales, Scotland etc.   We work here on citation, not opinion.  To be honest I can't see why this is an issue, given the name of the list, given the evidence ...   -- Snowded   TALK  18:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a point of fact, Scotland does not issue banknotes, rather three Scottish banks are permitted to issue banknotes (with equivalent status to cheques, debit cards and suchlike). But this is an irrelevance in any case.  If the name's the issue, rename the list.  But we cannot make any list of anything if the boundaries of what gets included and what does not get included in the list are not clear.


 * If the criterion is "anything we can cite as being called a country", then that's a criterion. Not a good one, in my view - for example there are quite a few on this list that are all cited, and I think we would struggle to ever make a reasonably stable list with that criterion.  But it is a criterion. Pfainuk talk 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct in your assertion that there are "quite a few on this list". It is not surprising when the Directory of TCC Countries page begins with: "Here is the Travelers' Century Club's official list of countries, a total of 317 as of June 2007. Although some are not actually countries in their own right ..." [my emphasis]. If I were not minded to [WP:AGF|assume good faith] I might think you were being mischievous. Even so, there are currently 245 entries on the article. If you strip out the entities that "are not actually countries", e.g. Prince Edward Island (wherever that is, GD), those of Antarctica, etc, then it is hardly unmanageable, is it? Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is their version of the "list of countries". How would you define, exactly, what entities "are not actually countries"?  The entire thing starts again.  My point was actually that if we were to use that criterion, it would be impossible to define where the list would end.  Someone would simply have to cite a website claiming that the Basque Country, Tibet, Catalonia, Flanders, or wherever was a country and it would need to be included in the list.  These would meet some neutral definitions of the word "country". Pfainuk talk 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c If a country is verified by a reliable source to be a country, then why not? Daicaregos (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

⬅ You continue to avoid the real point with multiple false examples. Wales, Scotland and England are designated as countries by the UK, they compete in major sporting events, in the case of Wales and Scotland they have their own parliaments. None of this apply to the Basque country, Catalonia or Flanders (Tibet is a different matter). The OED Dictionary includes them as countries and that counts a lot more than your opinion Pfainuk. You constantly cite examples not evidence. -- Snowded  TALK  22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't consider these to be false examples, I consider them to be borderline cases. As I keep on saying (and you keep on avoiding the point) we need concrete criteria for inclusion.  WP:STAND, the relevant style guideline, refers to "membership criteria" instead of inclusion criteria but it amounts to the same thing.  Do you propose that we include any area that competes in major sporting events, or any area that has its own parliament (noting that the Basque Country, Catalonia and Flanders - along with many other areas - all do, while England does not)?  If not, then this is not in any way relevant.  If you are arguing to include areas designated as countries by the sovereign power, then as I've mentioned above, the list would have to include the states of Germany. Pfainuk talk 22:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Snowded despite my view on the use of "country" there is plenty of evidence to support the use the term "countries of the United Kingdom". There is no justification however for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to be included on over a dozen "country lists" The fact underneath the main list it states clearly that it excludes the countries of the United Kingdom, its reasonable for no further changes to be made. Oh and just to remind you, Wales does not have a parliament, it has an assembly.. Big difference. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And if that arbitrary exclusion is removed there is then no reason for the countries of Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England to be excluded from a list of countries. Daicaregos (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BritishWatcher is now clutching at straws. If the cited evidence states that they are countries, then they belong on any list which has countries in the title.  The cited evidence so states.  The argument that the header of this page excludes them is an incredible argument, you can't change what a country is or deny citations by a line at the start of an article.   Actually Wales does have a parliament (using the term generically) its called an Assembly.  Other names are used in other countries.  Whatever its a governing body.
 * Pfainuk, please note many earlier points on your false examples, particularly the German states. Please deal with cited evidence. -- Snowded   TALK  23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) In that case, I do not know what you are arguing in favour of. Perhaps you would make it clearer.  Are you arguing that the definition of a country is somehow self-evident?  Are you arguing that this list should include all places that can be cited as countries?  Are you arguing that we should include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland despite the fact that they are excluded by the criteria set out in the list?  Or are you saying something else completely?  You keep on telling me to deal with cited evidence, but the fact is that the cited evidence cannot be used unless we know what we are trying to cite.  I don't know what you are trying to cite.


 * If we are to include England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, they must meet the criteria set out in the list. As Orange Tuesday described in his move proposal, the word "country" for the purposes of this list - a word that is otherwise rather vague - is defined by the list's inclusion criteria.  If those criteria do not mention citations then all the citations in the world make not a jot of difference unless they demonstrate that a criterion that is used is fulfilled.  Unless a country meets the inclusion criteria, it does not belong on the list.  For this reason, IMO, it would be a good idea to remove the confusing word "country" from the list.


 * I also do not know what you mean by "false examples". I see no particular reason why we should not treat all countries consistently throughout the list.  I do not find it helpful that you denounce some examples as "false" without explaining why they are false.  You mention that Catalonia, Flanders and the Basque Country are not represented in international sporting events, but that is irrelevant unless that is the basis for the list.  You mention (incorrectly, incidentally) that these three do not have parliaments, but that is irrelevant unless it is the basis for the list.


 * We must also be aware that a change in the inclusion criteria - which I assume is what you want here - may accidentally include some areas that were not intended. For example, the fact that German law refers to the states of Germany as (the German word for) "countries". Pfainuk talk 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I will be patient. If this is a list of countries, then the definition of country can not be determined by a few words at the head of the page.  You are setting criteria based on you wish to preserve the list as is, rather than by citation.  Renaming the page is just a convenient way of avoiding the argument.  Also please read what I said, there are multiple criteria for something to be a country, sporting teams are one possible example, a significant degree of self governance is another, historical existence and treatment another.  In this we rely on citation not opinion.  The OED and multiple other citations (see countries of Britain) clearly establish the status.  There is no equivalent authority for the German states (if there is please CITE IT).  -- Snowded   TALK  00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am trying to avoid the argument, but only because the argument is infinite and impossible to resolve. There's no single definition of the word country, which means that there's no way to create a definitive "list of countries." You think that the constituent countries belong on this list and I don't. Those two points of view aren't reconcilable. If you want a more inclusive list that includes everything that is called a country, that's totally fine. I encourage you to start that page. I'd gladly help with it, even. I just don't want either list to claim to be THE list of countries. There is no single list of countries, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we'll have this difference of opinion solved. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you hardly avoid an argument by taking a position. At least we are starting to isolate the various options.  A very simple question - please provide citations for the your German States are called countries argument.  -- Snowded   TALK  05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been answered a few times, but it's a pretty simple argument to explain. The English translation of the German word "Länder" is "countries." |en|L%C3%A4nder and Germany is subdivided into Länder . Therefore, in German, Germany is officially subdivided of sixteen "countries". We conventionally say that Germany has "states" in English, but that's not technically correct. The German word for "states" is "Staaten" |de|states.
 * This isn't just a semantic argument either. If you look on the States of Germany page, it's explained quite clearly: "The use of the term Länder (countries) instead of Staaten (states) is in accordance with German political tradition, where the concept of Germany as an entity has always existed, either as a confederation or an alliance of several smaller independent kingdoms and duchies dating from the 9th century. Many of the current states have the same names with territory substantially the same as their namesakes, the former sovereign countries (for example Bavaria and Saxony which have along with Bremen nearly the same territory as in 1871)." When you look at it in that context, I think you can see quite a few parallels to the UK.
 * Now, I realize that many people don't consider these entities to be countries, but that's my entire point. It depends on perspective. If you're used to considering the constituent countries of the UK as special, you're going to reject any definition which treats them as equivalent to the German Länder. But really, they're not that much different. They're not exactly the same, obviously, but they're pretty close.
 * This is my problem with having a "List of countries" page. You run into inconsistencies. You can come up with plenty of definitions that make sense, but whatever you decide upon, some people are going to feel excluded, and others are going to feel that the list isn't exclusive enough.
 * Despite what you might think, I'm not doing this out of a bias against Wales, etc. I understand that they're countries. It's just that this list was created with a specific intent: To list all the sovereign states, dependent territories, and unrecognized countries in the world. It's a list of "top-level" entities, so to speak. The Wikipedia version of the World Factbook or the ISO list. It's been that way since it was created, and it got featured article status that way. It's clearly a list that the editors and readers consider valuable, and I want to make sure that, whatever happens, it continues to exist. That's why I'm proposing the move. It's not to be all backhanded and go "Aha! Now Scotland doesn't qualify!". It's to make it so that we're not arbitrarily excluding things which can be considered countries. It's to remove the question of what a country is from the list altogether.
 * As I've said before, I think that a list where the only criteria is that a reliable source calls them a "country" could actually be quite valuable. I would be interested in working on that page. Honestly, I'd start it right now if I wasn't worried that someone was going to AfD it for content forking. I just don't think that it's appropriate to change the list as it stands into something as different as that. And I don't think that that list is any more deserving as being called "list of countries" than this list. No list can be, not if you want to maintain a neutral point of view. Orange Tuesday (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you argue against including countries on a list of countries. It's absurd. (BTW, please put your comments at the end of the section, so that people trying to follow the discussion don't miss anything. Thanks). Daicaregos (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As no-one who advocates inclusion except Matt seems to have taken on board, if we don't have certain conditions, certain definitions of what can be included and what not, the list ceases to have any meaning whatsoever. Any list has to clearly define what it includes and what it does not include, otherwise it is worthless.  If we are to have a list of countries we have to be able to define what we mean by the word "country" at the beginning of the list.  It is simply not good enough to say that somewhere is obviously a country or obviously not a country - or even that somewhere is cited as being called a country (unless that is the basis for the list), because opinions quite clearly differ as to whether this is obvious or not.


 * On the second point, Matt asked me to do precisely the opposite earlier in the discussion (well, he complained that he was offended by a response to everything at the end rather than a half dozen individual responses). Here seems like a logical place to respond in such a convoluted discussion. Pfainuk talk 11:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Orange Tuesday, i agree with your concerns about including Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland as countries on this list. When i first read your suggestion about renaming this article in order to avoid dispute, i thought it was the best solution and the only to reach agreement. That was before MickMacNee near the bottom of this page pointed out just how many pages actually use "country lists", there are over 40 and from the ones i looked at the majority (if not almost all of them) do not class England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries worthy of being in the list. That is a huge amount of wiki pages to change because a few people wish to add countries which are not defined as countries on international organisation websites, which are often used to source wikipages. UN, EU, Council of Europe, NATO, Commonwealth of Nations, World Fact Book, IMF, OECD. Youtube, puts the UK under country but does not include W/S/E/NI. The overwhelming standard of organisations and websites clearly view the UK as a country over that of W/S/E/NI. That in my opinion sets a standard which can be followed on such lists, despite some people clearly disagreeing on this issue. A few editors concerns should not be able over rule the internationally accepted standard. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of evidence to use the term "Countries of the United Kingdom" is to do with the use of the term country by the British government itself and not international organisations. There is no justification for Wales, to be added as a country on every single "country list" on wikipedia, that would meet with huge opposition on other pages aswell. You may wish to see Wales as an independent country, but i am sorry that is NOT currently the case. You support pages that describe "Countries of the United Kingdom" Therefor you should respect the use of the UK in international "country lists" with the additional mention of "countries in the United Kingdom" underneath, where appropriate BritishWatcher (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether I want Wales to be an independent country is nothing to do with this Oh my self-proclaimed Unionist friend. The question is if Wales (and Scotland) are countries, given that they are, they should be on the list.  Please attempt citable argument rather than repeating polemic.  -- Snowded   TALK  00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included in the list of "Countries and Locations" on the CIA World Fact Book. The same can be said for the following International Organisations websites, The World Bank, IMF, United Nations, NATO, European Union and the Commonwealth of Nations to name a few. All of these pages class the United Kingdom as a country and do not put Wales, England, Scotland, Northern Ireland instead of or aswell as the UK. Now there may be occasions when the above describe those as a country, but it is NOT on their offical list of countries, therefor it should not be on wikis list of "countries". The Commonwealth of Nations one is interesting, considering the "Countries of the United Kingdom" compete independently in the Commonwealth Games, but still list the UK as the only country.BritishWatcher (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know I keep getting more and more interested to know the names under which you edited before. The arguments you are putting forward are getting more and more similar to others who have gone before.  No one is disputing that one meaning of country is sovereign states, and some lists are based on that.  See other conversations here.  -- Snowded   TALK  05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but that does not answer the point i made. International organisations, many of them respected and major sources for wikipedia ALL include list of countries and England, Wales Northern Ireland and Scotland are not on them. There for i dont see why wiki country lists should be any different. As i have told you before i have not made comments about this issue in the past or made edits under other names. Who ever that person was is not me and i am slightly offended at the negative comments i get back for making reasonable suggestions or comments. Wikipedia is meant to be an evolving community, the political opinion of those who have been registered for years should not be treated as more important or more correct than that of new members. I understand if in the past there has been regular abuse by new usernames or the similiar IP that people will be cautious, but again rest assured this is the only usename i currently use and its the only username i have used in several years. I should not have to prove to someone my entire lifes history because they suspect me of something, there is such a thing as innocent until proven guilty. Now you mention my arguments are sounding familiar to that of others in the past, i bet they do. Over a dozen international organisations that are used as sources for THOUSANDS of wikipedia pages list the United Kingdom as a country but do not list England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in that same list. That is clear justification for leaving them off this list and simply including underneath that the list does not include the "countries of the United Kingdom" seems reasonable


 * I have come round to part of your argument snowded you should be proud. I accept there is not really a better way to label E/W/S/NI than "Countries of the United Kingdom" However use of the term countries of the United Kingdom does not justify its inclusion on over 40 "country lists" From countries by GDP to countries by Birthrate. If you succeed in your aim of getting this list renamed or to include Wales etc then you will simply move onto the next. Redoing dozens of lists because a couple of people have a thing about the countries of the United Kingdom is just wrong and an unimaginable amount of waste to peoples times. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

END THIS, FOLKS
As I'm the editor who opened this discussion (on November 16), I call for it's closure. Please, don't ask me why. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did tell you GoodDay, maybe next time .... -- Snowded  TALK  05:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete this list
See Talk:List of countries/Archive 1, Talk:List of countries/Archive 2

The OED gives these as its first four meanings for the word country.
 * 1.a."A tract or expanse of land of undefined extent; a region, district."
 * 2.a. A tract or district having more or less definite limits in relation to human occupation. e.g. owned by the same lord or proprietor, or inhabited by people of the same race, dialect, occupation, etc.; spec. preceded by a personal name: the region associated with a particular person or his works; also fig.
 * 3.The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc.
 * 4. The land of a person's birth, citizenship, residence, etc.; used alike in the wider sense of native land, and in the narrower one of the particular district to which a person belongs.

Not one of those first four meanings fit with the statement "the list of countries, listing countries in the sense of independent states (both those that are internationally recognized and generally unrecognized), inhabited dependent territories, and areas of special sovereignty." Which as far as I can see is a roll your own definition, and not one that the OED support. The OED does however specifically mention England, Scotland, and Ireland as countries. In its sixth meaning the OED state "6. a. The people of a district or state; the nation." yet this does not support the statement at the start of this article because the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish are also nations.

England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales are countries, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a state. Ireland is one country but part of two states. The UK is a state which consists of three and 1/4 countries. The word country is far too vague for the list here ever to be stable. As there is a list of sovereign states this article is redundant and confusing, the contents should be deleted and it should be made a redirect to list of sovereign states --PBS (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To call Northern Ireland 1/4 of a country is ridiculous. On the republic's independence from the UK, the island of Ireland was made into two new countries. To say there is only one 'Ireland' is politics. The UK calls 'Nothern Ireland' a country, and it is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Follow soccer and not rugger? --PBS (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have a fair point, but I don't necessarily agree with the solution. I think disassociating this list from the word "country" would be sufficient to remove this concern.  While the word "country" may be properly used elsewhere, this is clearly only a list of countries inasmuch as the reader accepts the article's definition of the word "country".


 * That said, you say that "[t]he word country is far too vague for the list here ever to be stable" - well, this list has been stable for nearly three years since becoming featured in January 2006. As Orange Tuesday noted above, the only change between that list and this that has not been motivated by real-world events was the merger of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. Pfainuk talk 14:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It has only been stable in content, but not on the talk page. The whole point of talk pages is not to edit war over the content, but to discuss the content and try to reach a consensus. AFAICT there has never been consensus over the independent existence of this page as an article and not as a redirect to Loss. --PBS (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * May I just ask what is AFAICT? Thanks in advance, Clpda (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAICT "as far as I can tell". :-) -- PBS (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Clpda (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It wasn't stable when a nightmare of a puppetmaster was bullying people here around July. What I'm doing now regarding informing people of the UK, I started then (and I asumed it was ISO-based sovereignity then too, or I'd have agued for inclusion with the dependencies - before I just wanted it fairly explained, as it's singularity and high notability warrants. We are supposed to be a helpful enclopedia, like Britannica - not to be POV run, and hiding things away).


 * These lists are not actually that well known - you might be surprised at the kind of admin/editors who simply don't know about them. Did you know of List of sovereign states before I pointed it out above? I don't think you did. There is certainly an argement for deleting this and focusing on that. List of nations needs to build up too. It currenly redirects to List of sovereign states, but can be easily based on List of national anthems when that is completed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just pointing out that the ISO list does include dependencies (both inhabited and uninhabited) as separate entries. The ISO list was the starting point for the list. The only major addition was the unrecognized states (except for Taiwan, which is on the ISO list). I also think the ISO list also excludes Akrotiri and Dhekelia. --Polaron | Talk 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware of List of sovereign states, as I'm sure most editors here are. (It's linked to right at the top of the page!) But you can't put dependencies on that list. This list and that list have different purposes. LOSS is a list of independent countries, and LOC is basically like the Wikipedia version of the ISO list. This list serves a unique and clearly defined purpose, and it should not be deleted.


 * However, I do agree with PBS on this: There should not be a page called list of countries. The word is too ambiguous. If it exists, it should be a disambiguation page. Orange Tuesday (talk)

If you delete this list, you have to delete/rename all of these articles too. Just a thought. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Very good point MickMacNee, there are a hell of alot of country lists which would have to be changed if this one was. As this article has been acceptable for many years with out that many other major disputes and there are all those other pages uses the term "country" the title of this page should not be changed, and this list should not be deleted. The definition of country at the top of the page along with examples underneath that include the countries of the United Kingdom like it does currently is the best solution. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at "What links here" of the two lists, the number of links to this list is far greater than those to the List of sovereign states. However, I find the latter of a better quality than this one, plus resolving nicely the recent disputes about inclusion/non-inclusion. An alternative could then be to delete this list but transfer its name to the List of sovereign states (that would become a redirect), saving 90% of the links. Although I agree with PBS and Orange Tuesday that 'country' is vague, it remains a usual word: when meeting a chap somewhere, you're not going to ask 'from which sovereign state are you from?' but 'from which country are you from?'. The actual distinction keeps entirely visible on the content of the page. Clpda (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And if you posed that question, Clpda ('Which country are you from?'), millions of people would, correctly, answer either Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England. Not many people would answer 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' to that same question (probably none). Some may answer 'Britain', but not many. You are quite right by saying that country is a usual word, but it does not necessarily mean a sovereign state. If you redirect 'List of countries' to List of sovereign states it would misinform the casual reader. This is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to save space by cutting down on links. This article should stay. And it should include countries. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would back Daicaregos up here. If I were asked what country I came from and answered Scotland would anyone tell me I was mistaken? The fact is along with the the refs to back it up Eng/Sco/Wal/and N.I. are commonly known as countries. Quite frankly, it's ridiculous to point to an article that insinuates somewhere like Prince Edward Island is a country and that people may want to include it on this list because the crireria has changed. It has even been suggested that parts of Germany may be put forward as countries if it is changed, yet if you ask any German what country they came from they would say Germany. Correct me if I'm wrong, is there not something on wiki that says the commonly used name must be used. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you asked a German, Welchem Land kommst du her (which, according to Google, is a direct translation of "Which country are you from"), you might get told Deutschland. Or you might get told Bayern, Schleswig-Holstein, Bremen, Sachsen, or some other state of Germany.  Both would make sense in context.


 * Note that WP:COMMONNAME is an article naming guideline, not an inclusion criterion for lists. Pfainuk talk 11:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you asked an English speaking German who knew the English meaning of country he/she would answer Germany. This is after all the English Wikipedia. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We cannot base this list on the assumption that the entire world speaks English, or apply our inclusion criteria only to the English-speaking world - particularly when (as the only criterion yet proposed suggests) we are relying on a designation by the governments of sovereign states. We have been using the German word or "countries" to refer to the states of Germany throughout this discussion.  German, like English, has a distinction between countries and states (Länder and Staaten), and the Germans use the "countries" variant. Pfainuk talk 11:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "We" haven't been using the German word or "countries" to refer to the states of Germany throughout this discussion. "You" have been using the German word or "countries" to refer to the states of Germany throughout this discussion. As you rightly pointed out re whether a German would use Deutschland or his Land in his reply - "Both would make sense in context." In the context of this list, his country would be Germany. As for the ridiculous argument "We cannot base this list on the assumption that the entire world speaks English" if they don't speak English they wouldn't be using the English Wikipedia, would they? Daicaregos (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And in the context of this list, a Welshman's country would be the United Kingdom. You are trying to change the context of this list, though.  The only criterion yet proposed that includes these four depends on the definition by the sovereign state.  The sovereign state here - Germany - defines Bavaria, Bremen, Saxony and so on as "countries" (Länder, as opposed to Staaten).  Therefore in the context of this list as proposed, our hypothetical German's country could be Germany, or it could be Bavaria, Bremen, Schleswig-Holstein or wherever.


 * This is the English Wikipedia, but we must be consistent in applying any criterion across the entire world. Given that most states do not operate their government in English, if we are to accept the criterion proposed we must be prepared to accept foreign-language definitions.  As Orange Tuesday said, many of the German states were independent relatively recently (Germany as a unified state was only founded in 1871) and have very long histories before then, so this is not illogical. Pfainuk talk 12:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

RESET and start again
Ok looking through all of this it seems to me that the following is agreed (or at least might be agreed)


 * A list of soverign states exist and would never include places such as Wales
 * Some editors want a list (this one) which is sovereign states and dominions
 * A list of countries is not necessarily bound or limited to the above and there is value if it exists, this would include Wales, Scotland etc and the question of Germany is open for the moment.
 * Its not clear if other pages are referencing a list of countries or sovereign states or if they are aware of those differences
 * There may be an argument to make this a disambiguation page, leading a a renamed version of this, a new list and the sovereign states list. -- Snowded   TALK  11:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * First point is (hopefully) obvious.
 * Second, I think a list is fair. There would seem little point in changing this list and then copy-pasting the current version to a new name, but as far as I'm concerned this would have exactly the same effect as a rename.  Whether it was still this list or a new list would be a matter of semantics to my mind.
 * Third point, I would change the word "would" to "may". I would question the value of any list that does not define how it decides what is included and what isn't in the lead, as style guidelines (WP:STAND) state.  But I see no reason why, generally speaking, a list of countries (with a rather more descriptive title than that) should not include these four.
 * Fourth point, this hasn't been much discussed but I think it's fair.
 * Fifth point, if it means what I think it does, then I agree. I think it means that there is (or may be) an argument for:
 * Renaming this list - without necessarily redirecting incoming links (though the renamed list would obviously have to be de-orphaned - that shouldn't be too hard).
 * Changing the redirect created at "List of countries" to a dab article, possibly similar to lists of countries, possibly restricted to the renamed version of this list, a new list and the LOSS.
 * Creating a new list of countries at a new name with inclusion criteria that include anything that can reliably be cited as called a "country", or something similar.
 * Clarifying inclusion criteria on other lists of countries (ISO would seem like a good shout in general). Pfainuk talk 12:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit: I would also things like the ISO standard list to the dab page described above. Pfainuk talk 13:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from redoing the introduction of the article, with a table as suggested which might be more clear there should be no further changes made to this list (and that of the 40+ other "country lists" which almost all use the same definition of country by including the United Kingdom but not including E/W/S/NI. Underneath or perhaps even above the list if it makes it more acceptable to some it should be made clear the list does not include the Countries of the United Kingdom which are represented on the list just as the UK BritishWatcher (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

How about; What do you think? I can bring the poll to the bottom of the discussion if you need to see more support for it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) A disam page (it tends to seem the most sensible way to go on a number of issues), which can also point to the ISO list (which is listed under its number ISO_3166-1, and can be improved), and possibly some other relevant articles too.
 * 2) This article renamed to List of countries and their dependencies, which would include my above, that lets in the UK countries with "(constituent country of the United Kingdom)" as the qualifier. We can simply see what happens regarding Germany, as we so clearly disagree on it.
 * I'll go with that Matt, breaks a log jam and its a minor page. -- Snowded   TALK  13:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with point one on creating the disam page, but i disagree with point two. If the Countries of the United Kingdom are included in the main list it will simply lead to more arguments in the future over different countries, such as the German problem raised before. A clear mention of the fact the UK represents the 4 Countries of the United Kingdom, above or below the list is enough. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What you call the "German problem"(!) is simply speculation that is strongly disagreed with. Sometimes you have move forward and see how it plays out. I've never ever seen people contrast (or contest) German lander in this way, despite the 'land' route of the word. This is the English language Wikipedia, and Germans just don't compare them in this way I am certain (if they did they would all demand their own football teams at very least!). But without any evidence, we need to see what happens - which will be nothing I am sure, and if so, we can simply debate it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would also go along with Matts proposal. BritishWatcher, Don't you think Matts idea of including them in the list with the qualifier "constituent country" makes it far clearer than a note at the top or bottom? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My concern is the implication it will have on the other 40+ countries lists, the vast majority of which do not include W/NI/E/S in the lists. I accept the use of the term "countries of the United Kindgom" as there seems to be no better way of describing them. But using that term does not justify its inclusion on international lists of countries.BritishWatcher (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok your wider agenda/concern is as stated above and as stated before. It doesn't look like we are going to get a 100% consensus but that is not always possible on Wikipedia anyway.  What do other people think of Matt's idea?  -- Snowded   TALK  14:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me as a compromise. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the consituent countries of the UK are not listed separately but indented and placed under the United Kingdom entry, this might be a reasonable compromise. This should probably also be done for "areas of special sovereignty". The regular dependencies (which are listed separately because they retain the right of self-determination under the UN decolonization framework), should still be listed as separate countries. Think of it this way: when one speaks of the United Kingdom without any qualifiers, does that automatically imply the inclusion of England? If it does, then it should be listed under the United Kingdom. If not, then it can be listed separately. When one speaks of Denmark without any qualifiers, does that automatically include Greenland? When one speaks of the United States without any qualifiers, does that automatically include Guam? When one speaks of China without any qualifiers, does that automatically include Macau? If one has to specify whether a dependent area is included or not when speaking about a given country, then that area is more usually considered a separate country and deserves its own entry. If a dependent area is assumed to automatically be included when speaking about a given country, then that area may be listed under its parent country. The question is then, when one says "the United Kingdom", does that always mean Scotland, etc. are included? Or does one have to clarify by saying "in the United Kingdom, including the area of Scotland"? I believe that almost all the entries that are not sovereign states are not automatically included in the scope when talking about the parent country. Does that also hold true for the constituent countries? --Polaron | Talk 14:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * When people say "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" it means England, Scotland, Wales (which form Great Britain) and Northern Ireland. Without the need to add any qualifiers to include the above. The relationship is like the United States of America and its States (which actually have more powers than the "Countries of the United Kingdom". A good comparison to "USA and Guam" would be the "UK and the Isle of Man", it certainly wouldnt be the "UK and England". BritishWatcher (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe we have consensus on a dab page, though it would probably better not to implement it until consensus is achieved on remaining issues raised here.


 * The current ISO article is not so much a list of countries as an article about the ISO 3166-1 standard that happens to include the ISO code elements. It would not, in my opinion, be helpful to try and convert that to a dual-purpose article.  Further, the ISO uses some names that do not conform to normal practice on Wikipedia.  I see value in including the unrecognised states (which the ISO does not), and I see value in conforming to Wiki norms regarding countries' names.  We should have new article (or a renamed version of this article) that uses either this list's criteria for inclusion (plus possibly uninhabited dependencies) or ISO plus unrecognised states as a basis for inclusion.  The latter criteria give essentially this list plus the uninhabited dependencies and Antarctica, and minus Akrotiri and Dhekelia so far as I can tell.


 * Any article named List of countries and their dependencies or any similar name (the "their" does not belong, for one thing) will also need to include the uninhabited dependencies currently excluded from this list. I think that this, like the table, was agreed in the context of this list during the Western Sahara debate but was never actually implemented, and I do not see that it is controversial.  I agree with Polaron that these four and the areas of special sovereignty (with the obvious exception of the Palestinian Territories) should be indented under the sovereign state - this should be applied even if a table form is used.


 * The wording of your proposed criterion is rather too open to interpretation in my view. I quoted Germany because it was the obvious example.  I can't say for sure that there isn't another example out of the 245 countries listed here, only that if there is it's not as obvious.  If we are to use it in any article to mean exclusively England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that needs to be improved.


 * Finally I think we ought to take this issue to WikiProject Countries to get consensus to define the word "country" for the purposes of the lists on the lists of countries as per the ISO list except where that word is already explicitly defined otherwise. I do not expect this to be particularly controversial. Pfainuk talk 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

arb break

 * On second thoughts, all this will achieve is to give us two near-identical lists, which seems a tad pointless. So, I will accept the proposed compromise on the conditions that:
 * The proposed criterion is shored up.
 * Countries listed under the new criterion and as "areas of special sovereignty" are put in indented lists underneath the sovereign states involved. The Palestinian territories are reclassified as an unrecognised country.  That doesn't mean we can't put in italic bits to redirect people.
 * The word "their" is removed from the article title. Uncontroversial, I think.
 * Uninhabited dependent territories are included. This includes all Antarctic claims except the Chilean, Argentine and Brazilian claims, which should be considered separately (as they are not formally dependent territories).  Again, I assume this is uncontroversial.
 * We go to WikiProject Countries to get consensus that all lists of countries that don't define a "country" are to do so using the ISO list with standard Wiki names for countries. Again, I hope that's uncontroversial. Pfainuk talk 15:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * e/c (still have these points..). Country is defined by its Wikipedia article - why demand another definition? This particular list is the responsibility of this list/article, so we must debate here. I don't have the energy to go through all again at Wikiproject countries. What can be gained from it? I can see a one very good reason not to go there (avoiding the torture of sockpuppetry), but not one reason do so. At a push, you could simply post that debate on all this is going on here. You have to be careful not to canvass your own position though.


 * I'll remove "their". As we already have the ISO article, I think it is sensible to keep the ISO list in it (and use redirected variants to it) - either that or we make a separate "ISO list of sovereign states" (including all sensible redirected variants inc the word "country" etc


 * If we sub-list the UK constituent countries under the UK we may as well delete this whole article and focus on List of sovereign states - the anomalies like Palestine are far more sensibly placed there. If we sub-list the dependencies why even call it List of countries with dependencies? Again, we may as well just focus on List of sovereign states - as it also sublists dependencies.


 * With the UK countries included this article actually has a good reason to exist (ie, in existing alongside a 'list of sovereign states' which could esily have the anomalies there instead)! At the moment it is taking the place of a far more sensible disambiguation page - which we all agree. IMO, we either include the UK countries (a sensible reason to keep this list), or lose the the whole list altogether and focus on 'List of Sovereign states'. Either way List of countries should be a disam page, with all the other country lists listed at the bottom - ie a collection of lists with the main one/ones at the top (perhaps one as an ISO list).--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This list will not be identical to "List of sovereign states" as dependencies will still be listed as separate entries. One should not forget that the main reason dependencies are included is because under international law, these areas retain the right to self-determination without the need for the approval of the sovereign state. I don't believe England can simply vote to become an independent country without approval by the rest of the UK. --Polaron | Talk 16:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The main UK dependencies are also listed at List of sovereign states (along with the constituent countries) - they are next to the sovereign state, which is also what has been proposed for here (ie underneath the sovereign state). What's the point in having two articles that do the same thing? 'Palestine' italic-points to 'Other states' there. This list (whatever we call it) has to be significantly different, or it's a pointless duplication.


 * If dependencies are the main focus, it's more sensible just to have an article called List of country dependencies, given how small some of them are. The criteria being: no dependencies, no listing.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then remove them there to simplify that list as those are not sovereign states anyway so they really shouldn't be there in the first place. We could of course retain "List of countries" and redirect the other lists (sovereign states, dependent territories, unrecognized states) to this one. The specific types can easily be delineaetd if we rework this list into a sortable table with a column specifying what type of country it is (i.e. sovereign state, dependent territory, unrecognized). One can simply sort by country type and automatically get all those lists within the single list of countries. Again dependencies are considered by both the UN and the ISO as countries because these areas have the right to become independent if the people so choose. --Polaron | Talk 16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, I completely agree with your five points. Matt Lewis, I'm not so keen on your proposed compromise criterion. Including the constituent countries would effectively mean that there would be no list consisting of sovereign states, dependencies, and unrecognized states, which was the entire purpose of this list in the first place. If we want to compromise, we need a solution where there can be a list of countries that includes the constituent countries and a separate list which includes (with some tweaks) what we have on this list right now.

Your proposal of just having the list of sovereign states also isn't great. For one thing, I don't think that the editors of that page would appreciate us hijacking it. For another, that page organizes its information entirely differently. And finally, why does it have to be THIS list that gets deleted? Why not that list? This one has featured status, that one does not. If we're going to try and judge which one is more valuable to the Wikipedia community, we shouldn't be so hasty to assume that LOSS is better.

I don't want to be a stick in the mud here. I really want a solution that everyone is happy with. But I don't think that Matt Lewis's compromise is much of a compromise at all. It basically just means that he gets his way.

I'm glad we're all agreed on the disambiguation page and the table format though. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to laugh when you say "I just get my way"!! - I'm exploring all these different approaches (as we all are) as my initial proposal (which was polling reasonably well by the way - and is perfectly sound) was put on hold by further debate. Any outcome I happen to agree with, whether it includes adding constituent countries, or even deleting this page and being ISO-only, would be 'getting my way'!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine. That was a poor choice of words. But you get what I'm saying, right? I think having a list like the one that currently exists is important, I don't think that LOSS can do the job that this article is doing, and I'm reluctant to accept any solution where a list like the current LOC doesn't exist under some name somewhere. Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's all in the LOC (List of Counties) name - which should be a dsam page. Whatever happens, the misdirected List of nations will eventually be the biggest list, when we eventually get round to finishing the List of national anthems, it can easily be made (if not sooner). That and List of sovereign states, with a new List of country dependencies - all being listed at the LOC disam page (with the various offshoot lists at the bottom of the page) will be fine for me.


 * The important thing is to eradicate all form of unfairness, or disproportion, on the 'countries' issue. This IS do-able - I never accept that it isn't on Wikipedia, as it is always in the wording. Outright negativity on these matters - if anyone here has it (I'm not suggesting they do) - is simply unsuitable for Wikipedia, imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that "ISO-only" is essentially identical to this list without the unreconized states, i.e. the dependencies will still be on the list. --Polaron | Talk 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some of us have been using the term 'ISO' as we have meant it from other debates - we mean the recognised sovereign states. They have many lists of course, being an International Standards Organization. Somewhere out there is the 190-odd list of countries the majority of other countries agree on. It was quoted on Wales a lot - I'll look for it. That is what most of us mean by 'ISO', but you are right about the quoted ISO article including far more, though. I know I've suggested an ISO list, but realistically, List of sovereign states, List of country dependencies (made out of this one) and List of nations, all under a disam page called List of countries should do the trick.


 * Failing that we include my constituent country proposal into a List of countries and dependencies (a retitle of this one), and have that in the disam-page called List of countries (instead of the List of country dependencies suggested above).


 * Either one will suite me, and the List of countries disam page (which will surely now happen) will eventually include a List of nations as a disambiguation for 'List of countries' too (it's effectively being worked on at List of national anthems). The List of nations page can say it is also an effective 'list of countries' per Wikipedis's 'country' definition. The main thing is that List of countries is a disam page! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Matt i totally agree with you on the need for the list of countries / nations to redirect to a disam page allowing people to choose if they want this page (what ever it will be called) or the sovereign state page and perhaps others along with a clear definition of the differences. Although i dont think another list of "nations" is needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be two lists and there needs to be some differences to justify their existence. I hope what is decided does not lead to the "dumbing down" of the Sovereign state page which provides alot of detail by including the breakdown of the countries of the UK and the UKs dependencies etc in a correct way. If the England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are added to this list the only reasonable way possible would be for it to maintain a sub position to the United Kingdom as some of the templates above have laid out. E/NI/S/W should not be on their own like dependencies are on this list. I still worry about the implications of including them in the main list, it might start a knock on effect on the other 40+ "country lists" BritishWatcher (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should really worry about the other lists of countries (at least the ranked lists) as the references used for the lists do not really tabulate entries for the individual UK consituent countries. --Polaron | Talk 17:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to "dumb down" anything - don't be so 'Daly Mail'! The knock on idea needs evidence - it's like a scare story. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The dumbdown bit was just a comment against the idea of removing any information from the sovereign state page which goes into alot of detail rather than just listing sovereign states. As for my concerns on a knock on effect, such things are possible. This debate is only happening because E/W/NI/S are now defined as "Countries of the United Kingdom" (which dispite my original opposition i now agree with) If the Countries of the UK are added to this list, its a possibility that such things will be added to other lists (although i accept it wont be ranked lists) BritishWatcher (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's actually only one country list in the ISO and it's the ISO 3166 standard, which contains 246 entries. It's basically the same as this list, with a few differences. (It includes some uninhabited territories and the four French overseas departments, but it excludes most of the unrecognized states) The 193 country list you're thinking of would be the list of UN members + Vatican City. Orange Tuesday (talk)

I'm putting this at the end because I don't think it goes well elsewhere:

Since we are talking about a reorganisation of our lists of countries, it would first be a good idea to ask what we've got already. I am only including lists of global scope:
 * List of countries - lists sovereign states, dependent territories, and areas recognised by international treaty or agreement
 * List of sovereign states - lists sovereign states, both recognised and non-recognised, with dependent and autonomous territories listed with their parent sovereign states
 * List of dependent territories - lists dependent territories by country
 * List of unrecognized countries - lists sovereign states that are not generally recognised
 * List of extinct states - lists states that no longer exist
 * List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement - lists places which are given special status by an international treaty or agreement. It is horribly out of date.
 * ISO 3166-1 - article on the ISO specification
 * List of micronations

Bearing in mind that we have made the decision that the name List of Countries is to be a dab page including all those articles (and more), I'm coming around to PBS's perspective here. We have essentially two lists that cover the same ground. All entries on the LOSS are on this list, and all entries on this list - including the four advocated here - are mentioned on the LOSS. We don't need both lists.

While the LOSS is not featured, while we should not automatically assume that the LOSS does the job better than this list does, and while this list is useful, I think the LOSS presents the information in a rather clearer way - leading to less confusion such as we got with Taiwan this morning (below). Bearing this in mind I would consider the option of simply changing this list to a disambiguation page with no other changes made to be acceptable. Pfainuk talk 19:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Pfainuk you make a very good point and i suppose as there is very little difference between the two pages and the LOSS page is laid out far better its the right solution to this problem. The only real reason for the "countries" page was to cover those not defined as a LOSS, but they will be available in the list of unrecognized countries on the disam page as you said. I fully support your suggestion. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would accept this. I would only add that a new List of country dependencies could be the only place where we could also put the smaller (and perhaps also uninhabited) dependencies (these are not in LOSS). It would be a useful list with the extra politics out of it (ie it need only list all the dependencies of sovereign states, state by state, nothing else). ?


 * I know where I'm going with List of nations, so the awkward countries like England will get in an alphabetical list in the end. List of nations can be disammed from the 'List of Countries' disam page as a variant of 'country' (and also exlpain it at LON of course) - so we can statisfy everyone in the end. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If List of dependent territories (redirecting to Dependencies) has every kind of dependency listed, we needn't even re-do that.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better if "List of Nations" redirected back to the disam page that LOC will become (like it does currently) rather than to a separate list which may cause confusion again. Many use the term nation when thinking of country, so it would be better for that to go to the disam page first where they can find the "nations" list or what title it will be. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I remember an editor once who wouldn't accept Wales could even be called a nation. I don't think too many on Wikipedia would begrudge anyone a List of nations. When List of national anthems is complete it will be invitable - I can't see too many people voting to delete it. If we link to it from the LOC disam page (which would be a future event anyway) we will then have the full package. It's all about disambiguation at the end of the day. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can live with a list of nations, including with it having Wales on lol :). But when someone types in "list of nations" it should take them to the disam page (like it currently takes them to this LOS page) Then once they are on the disam page, they can choose from the list of nations, soveriegn states etc. If you see what i mean.  BritishWatcher (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That article has all dependent territories listed. It doesn't list areas that are considered integral to the state concerned despite being far flung (such as French Guiana or Hawaii) - but you wouldn't expect it to.  Beyond that, I was expecting other lists such as Countries of the United Kingdom and the lists of countries in continents and to go on the dab page as well - that certainly wasn't intended as an exhaustive list.  List of nations really shouldn't redirect to LOSS - though I would say a hatnote pointing there would be a good idea - so I'm glad you're doing something about it. Pfainuk talk 20:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultimately the disam list will be really useful. Do you want to make a new poposal section, so we can vote? We all agree on the disam page, and it all seems to make sense now. I can't think what more debate might bring up. I'll look at the hatnote.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, why not? Pfainuk talk 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Based on the above discussion, and specifically that: I propose that we convert this article to a disambiguation page listing the unranked lists of countries that we already have, without creating any replacement article. Pfainuk talk 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This list and the list of sovereign states both present the same information.
 * It is not necessary to present the information twice.
 * The list of sovereign states presents the information more clearly than does this article (so that the bold/italic confusion re: Taiwan documented below is unlikely to be repeated, for example).


 * Support as proposer. Pfainuk talk 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I fully support the idea, although i would like to see "List of Nations" continue to be redirected to this new disam page so people may choose if they wish to view the nations list or select the LOSS / other lists agreed. This would prevent arguments breaking out on the new LON page if and when that is created. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Since this would effectively delete the page as it stands, isn't an AfD or something in order? Orange Tuesday (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A talk page consensus is enough unless we're dealing with an actual technical deletion, since that would remove information from public view whereas old versions in this case would remain in the history. A future talk page consensus would be able to reverse this decision using the history. Pfainuk talk 22:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we revise PBS's Lists of countries instead (surely better than having that and another disam page) we need only add a redirect tag to this one.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what we're obliged to do, I feel like it would be appropriate to get more people involved in this process. Seems like too large a decision to be left to the seven or so of us that are currently hanging around this talk page. Orange Tuesday (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll put a link to this direct proposal in Wikiproject countries. I hear what you're saying, but we have to be careful we get an even mix of people, who will properly take in the debate. 'Fly by' voters can be a nightmare sometimes, especially when change is involved. As LOSS is so similar to LOC (and we still have a disam page), I don;t think it's serious enough to take to the village pump type of places.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment What would be missing from turning this into a disambiguation page is an alphabetical listing of an inclusive list of countries. I am currently working on a sortable table that might be used to replace this list where one can sort by "country type" (sovereign state, dependency, area of special sovereignty, etc.). A working draft can be found here. Suggestions are welcome. --Polaron | Talk 22:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That list looks very good polaron and such an interative table would be most useful. That could be placed on the disam page aswell as all the other previous stated lists if this proposal is agreed to BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can always try that approach as a new article, with a new name. I honestly don't think 'List of countries' is the right name for it (despite your new approach), so I'm supporting the disam-page proposal here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support both initial proposal and variant by Polaron above whichever can gain the wider support, with one comment in favour of the latter for implementation issues: it may look confusing to have List of countries and Lists of countries (note the plural of the second) that are both disambiguation pages. Clpda (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I am in favour of redirecting the article to list of sovereign states, but could live with this page as a disambiguation page but in which case why not redirect it to Lists of countries what is the advantage of another disambiguation page? --PBS (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that lists of countries could be renamed "Lists of countries by data" and then included on this page which will become the disam of "List of countries" if you see what i mean. Theres only a couple of lists on that page which are not by data. (Just the island ones at a glance which could be put on the main disam page) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm actually i agree with what you said, it would be better with just one disam page and put LOSS, LON, at the top of that page. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BritishWatcher you seem to be havering over List of nations. Above you wrote "although i would like to see "List of Nations" continue to be redirected to this new disam page so people may choose" and here you write " LOSS, LON, at the top of that page" if list of nations is to be changed to redirect to lists of countries (your first suggestion) the it does not need to be at the top of that list. Personally I would like to see list of countries and list of nations redirect to list of sovereign states with a WP:hatnote there to the disambiguation page Lists of countries. This is because usually country nation and state are used interchanagebly and it is only for some anomilies, such as the home countries (eg no other national team representing a country plays in the FIFA world cup competition that is not representing a state). But I'll go with list of nations and list of countries redirecting to Lists of countries if the consensus is to do that. --PBS (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

PBS i would prefer what you suggested about List of nations going direct to the LOSS page, my concern was if there is a new list to be created called "list of nations" (something i dont support, but could live with)which was mentioned by Matt that people still be directed to the disam page first. I agree with you nation/country mean the same thing to many people so i didnt want people entering "list of nations" and going straight to this new possible nations list. Hope that makes sense, sorry. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Matt is planning a separate "List of nations" article. "Nation" is even more awkward than "country" - in some senses of the word there are plenty of nations that are not sovereign states (for example, Canada's House of Commons passed a motion "that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada", and I believe many American Indian peoples call themselves "nations") and several sovereign states that do not really constitute nations (I'm thinking of the Vatican).  Until that list is up and running, I would personally redirect list of nations to nation.  That said, I think this is a separate issue to the future of this page, and not something we need a decision on here. Pfainuk talk 18:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Per PBS's note - we may as well make the proposed changes to Lists of countries (ie start it as a disam page), and redirect List of countries to that. It makes no odds, as we planned to extend the lists on offer anyway. There's no point having too many of these things. In a way, 'Lists' is even more to the point. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd go for that. Pfainuk talk 13:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that we have no outright opposes, and the only comments in the last 48 hours have concerned the redirect/new article List of nations rather than the future of this article, I am closing this in the spirit of WP:BOLD as a consensus to redirect to Lists of countries. While the original proposal was the create a disambiguation page, redirecting to the existing disambiguation page would have a similar effect to this article. Since I was the original proposer, you are welcome to invite an uninvolved admin to judge consensus if you feel that I am not an appropriate person to do this. Pfainuk talk 15:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to add, because it is a featured list, it needs delisting before we can go through with this, per this message on my talk page. I will start things off. Pfainuk talk 23:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The FLRC is now closed, and the redirect is in place. Pfainuk talk 12:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing Taiwan as a country
First, I must apologize for breaking the 3RR. I'm new to editing Wiki and I had no intention to start an "editing war". I simply thought that my edit didn't go through (unfortunately there is no confirmation page), so I tried to submit my edit again. After a while I learned that there is a "history tab", and I eventually realized that someone has been revising my edit, so I used the undo function to restore my previous edit.

Ok, back to the topic.

I understand that the "Taiwan is/isn't a independent country" is a well known controversial topic. However, as stated by the UN and most of the governments in the world, Taiwan is NOT a country. To me that is more than enough to conclude that we should rule out Taiwan from this list, at least up to this moment.

Wikipedia has to build up and maintain its reputation. I don't think ignoring UN's opinion and claim that Taiwan is an independent country is going to help.

Wikipedia is NOT a place for one to state his/her personal opinions/beliefs. When dealing with questionable/controversial matters, like this one, I believe that Wiki should always rely on reputable sources (in this case, the United Nations, and many governments).

TensaZ (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As things stand, Taiwan is included because it meets the definition of the word "country" as defined by this page (it is a state that is generally unrecognised). As things stand, Taiwan does belong in the list.  We are currently discussing whether the definition should be changed or not, but this isn't one of the points in contention.


 * Note that the UN is not, in general, a neutral and independent party. In this case it has recognised one of the two states claiming to be China as China, which would appear to impair its neutrality. Pfainuk talk 11:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reply.


 * In my perspective, the UN is a neutral party (at least in this case). I don't think there is an absolute answer for that, so I'm not going to argue about it. However when a government/association claims that Taiwan is not an independent country, it often refers to "Taiwan is part of China". In this case, UN called Taiwan - "Taiwan, Province of China". There weren't "two states" to begin with.


 * While Taiwan meets the definition "state that is generally unrecognized", I think it is necessary to put some identifications to tell/show the readers that Taiwan is regarded as "a state that is generally unrecognized" to avoid confusion. There is a huge difference between "internationally recognized" and "generally unrecognized". In the current edition, it looks like "China" and "Taiwan" has the same level of recognition, which is far from the truth.


 * Here are my suggestions:
 * 1) redesign the list and put those countries/states which are "generally unrecognized" into a different column. Or
 * 2) use some identifications (different colour/italic text/symbol) to identify the countries/states that are "generally unrecognized".


 * TensaZ (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The second point is actually what we do. You'll notice that Taiwan is (or at least should be) in bold italics on the list, whereas Mainland China is simply in bold.  At the beginning of the list we note that bold italics are used for generally unrecognised states.  This could be done better, I think - there is a proposal that a table be used instead of a bullet-point list, to make this clearer.  But at the moment there may be, potentially, big changes to this list and how we list countries on Wikipedia, and I don't think it's likely that we will add a table until we've reached consensus on that.  Thanks, Pfainuk talk 12:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of people might not notice that Taiwan is in italics, it looks almost identical to me. Perhaps the full name after Taiwan could be put in italics as well to make it stand out more. Regular italics is more noticable (for the time being) BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Bold implies that they are independent states, which de facto they are. But let's deal with one thing at a time, shall we?  As I say, I'm rather hoping that once we get the above resolved, we'll have a table anyway, and the type of italic used now will make no difference. Pfainuk talk 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Western Sahara isn't a country, Western Sahara is a non-self-governing territory (United Nations)
I thank you all for your commitment to correct some wrong information on the list of countries and to think of deleting this page for the account of the list of sovereign states which I personaly approve (I made a comment on that). My unique remark would be again that Western Sahara couldn't be considered as 'another state'. 'SADR' could be of course considered as another state but not a sovereign one and Western Sahara can't be associated to 'SADR' as 'SADR' is not administrating Western Sahara. I believe WS case is a real special case. I believe our reference documents should be the UN resolutions on Western Sahara. The argument that Western Sahara exists on the ISO list of codes (ISO 3166-1) since then it must be considered as a state is definitely not valide as the ISO list corresponds to countries and TERRITORIES. Besides, the ISO list was elaborated when the Western Sahara was spanish (70') longer before the running conflict between Morocco and the separatist faction Polisario Front started in 1979.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are no relevant changes to be made to the article, there is no reason to discuss, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Since you've already said you approve the consensus above, I assume that this applies in this case.  I would suggest that other readers, if they are interested, read the previous discussion (in the previous archive) for the various points surrounding Western Sahara's inclusion on this list. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Moroccansahraoui, you're completely off the mark, I'm afraid. The discussion started by Brits wanting their constituent country be listed entirely superseded the previous discussion about WS (and possibly other similar cases). This led to a far more radical solution, which still has to be implemented, and into which WS will find a place matching the criteria agreed upon. Nobody has forgotten the case of your territory (you were noisy enough about it ;-) and this will surely be taken into into account like many other expectations. Just wait... Clpda (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing Redirect
I have changed the redirect so that it goes to List of sovereign states. I am doing this explicitly in the spirit of WP:BRD - so if there's an objection, you can revert and we can discuss. Pfainuk talk 16:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The sovereign states page is clearly the main list now so i dont see a problem with this redirecting to there although perhaps a "see - lists of countries" could be added to the top of the sovereign states article so people dont have to go all the way to the see also section to find the lists page which does provide alot of good links.


 * Pfainuk if you have some time please can you take a look at the list of anthems by country and list of national anthems pages. These two seem to have exactly the same problem as the country lists did before the recent changes. I made a suggestion on those pages over a week ago about a similar possible change, but so far only one person responded so im not sure what to do. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please stop Canvassing. It is inappropriate and disruptive. This talk page is to discuss ways to improve this article and this article only. It may be appropriate to consider deleting the paragraph from this page. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but what i have done is not canvassing. This is an entirely related issue to problem with the list of countries articles which has now been resolved. I did not ask for Pfainuk to back my request for change, i simply asked for pfainuks opinion and advice as after 10 days of leaving the comment on both the related articles, you only responded once and did not reply to my response.


 * I suggest you read the actual link you post Daicaregos before you start making false accusations. The first sentence starts "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians" I have not done that. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are getting into the habit of running all over the place if you can't get your views accepted BW. It may not technically be canvassing, but it is beginning to look like you are on a campaign to prevent country recognition where ever possible.  I hope its nothing to do with the Union Jack on your use page.  -- Snowded   TALK  19:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about Canvassing. I apologise and withdraw the accusation. However, your comments are still inappropriate. This is from WP:Talk: "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." Your request to Pfainuk is not relevant to this article. Please remove these discussions. Daicaregos (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have said i changed my opinion and position on use of the term country for England, Scotland and Wales as i now agree there is no better way of describing them than countries but this is about international lists and i believe the problems with these "list of countries" articles that were resolved are almost identical to the situation currently with the national anthem pages. I dont believe this is irrelevant but i am sorry for mentioning it on another articles talk page. However had i done a similar thing and asked on Pfainuks talk page for advice or an opinion on those articles, i think my actions would of been attacked in the same way anyway. I will not discuss this matter again on this page, but i can not remove these comments because i believe it is relevant. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wiki policy for language articles etc.
Language articles, among others, have infoboxes with space for areas "spoken in" (defined as "countries in which it is mainly spoken") and "official language in" (defined as "list of countries in which it is an official language"). It is of course useful to be precise, so that self-declared states such as S. Ossetia are relevant, as are dependent territories such as American Samoa. However, this runs the risk of sparking edit wars, even though we're not making any direct claims about legitimacy. Is there any policy governing this?

I'm starting a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Language. kwami (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Rejected BRD
Someone undid the redirect "per rejected WP:BRD". I have some issues with this.

The WP:BRD applied to the change of the redirect from Lists of countries to List of sovereign states, not to the notion of redirecting the article. This was decided by talk page consensus here. The standing consensus is to redirect. My WP:BOLDness was simply to change the redirect target, not to perform the redirect itself. I think it's fair to suggest that after two months without objection, my changed redirect target has consensus in practice. For these reasons, I consider the revert to the previous list to be a WP:BOLD change that I have reverted per WP:BRD. I have gone to the original redirect target as determined by discussion, though I think the new redirect target is far closer to what people are likely to be looking for.

I object to the change because I don't see we need to duplicate what we already have at List of sovereign states. The list of sovereign states includes every single entity that was listed on the list of countries (though it puts non-sovereign entities below the sovereign states concerned), and does it rather better than this list did. We don't need two lists that say the same things twice. Pfainuk talk 09:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree two months without change or talk on the talk page, is a new stable version, so I have redirected the page to List of sovereign states (as it has been for the last 2 months,) it is the primary meaning of list of countries, if the link from another page would be better served with a link to another country page, then the hatnote to lists of countries at the top of List of sovereign states can be followed to find a better link if necessary. --PBS (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
I reverted the last edit to create a list of countries for three reasons.
 * The proposal was not discussed here although it is clear that this solution has been rejected.
 * The content was basically a fork of List of sovereign states (see Content forking). The past attempts to define country has proved impossible to do without introducing a bias in the list (see WP:NPOV and this list has not solved the problem for example why are the "16 Non-Self-Governing Territories designated by the UN" countries but England is not a country? Further there seems to be a confusion between nation and country otherwise why include "all 192 current member states of the United Nations (UN);" as it is the "United Nations" and not "United Countries".
 * There was no discussion on the talk page for a change, so now the bold edit has been rejected please try to reach a consensus for change before re-implementing. --PBS (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed all content was contained on the other articles, and had that table remained there would of been alot of disputes. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. I don't see the benefit in creating a content fork. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The List of sovereign states is a wonderful page, but sovereign states are clearly a subset of countries. The list of countries that was here was clearly defined as derived from three sources:
 * The International Organization for Standardization (ISO),
 * The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and
 * The United Nations (UN).
 * That seems quite clear to me. --Buaidh (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This list can only be supposed to be a definitive list of countries in the world. But the fundamental ambiguity of the word "country" makes this an impossible task.  Some say that a country is a sovereign state.  It is not clear to many in the world that sovereign states are a subset of countries - the two are frequently seen as synonymous.  To others - particularly in the UK - it is quite obvious that the countries of the UK are as much "countries" as the sovereign states of the world - that a country is not simply a political construct and that UN recognition is a fundamentally illogical way of defining a "country".


 * The definition you use for this definitive list of countries is fundamentally flawed. You list several entities that do not exist.  The Soviet Union is not a country.  If we can list former countries, it seems entirely arbitrary to stop in 1945 - why not include Austria-Hungary, Prussia, Poland-Lithuania or the Roman Empire?  All are former countries and I see no basis to include any of them on a list of countries of the world.  You list Southern Rhodesia, a former British colony, but not other former British colonies such as British Guiana or British Honduras.  You list one of St. Helena's dependencies (Ascension Island), but not the other (Tristan da Cunha).  You take sides in several international disputes - Kosovo, Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria.  And you base this definition on three apparently arbitrarily chosen sources that clearly do not define the word "country".  FIFA and the IOC have their own definitions of the word "country" - why not use them?


 * Now, we have a list of sovereign states, and a list of dependent territories. We have ISO 3166-1, a list of United Nations member states and of country code top-level domains.  We don't need this content fork.


 * Finally, I notice you have recreated the list at Countries of the world. I will revert that for the same reasons as I reverted this.  You don't currently have consensus for this, as clearly demonstrated by the comments here.  Trying to recreate it elsewhere would appear to be forum-shopping. Pfainuk talk 12:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeat of my final paragraph as regards Countries of the Earth. Pfainuk talk 10:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not restrict the actual list the countries which are not sovereign states, so as to not duplicate the material? We could start with a link to the 200-odd sovereign states, so they're included without being repeated, then continue with the rest. kwami (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the previous discussions on this issue (archives under Talk:List of sovereign states). For example see Talk:List of countries/Archive 4). Also as mentioned else where in the archives the use in such terms as Shakespeare's country as beloved by the English Tourist Board and local authorities? The general conclusion from the last time we debated this was that word country has too broader meaning to construct a NPOV list, so we chose to redirect to the primary meaning and hatenote at the top of that list Lists of countries which have lists with other meanings. --PBS (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Rico, Greenland, Aruba, Bermuda, etc.
These are definitely not sovereign states but they are countries. They used to appear on this list. Why cannot we keep a list of countries? It is important to bear in mind that country ≠ sovereign state, althought almost all countries are sovereign states. Baksando 17:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus was reached to remove a huge "list of countries" as it simply leads to confusion and duplication. Placing all of them into one super "countries list" creates conflict and should not be reattemped. You can find a long debate about changing the setup in the archives of one of the talk pages, not sure which.
 * I dont have a problem with the change you have made so people can choose between sovereign state / dependent territory however the redirect was also fine and probably better. At the top of the sovereign states list (which is overwhelmingly what people look for when thinking of "countries") is the link to Lists of countries where all the different lists including the ones you added can be found. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's in the archives for list of sovereign states.


 * Your attempt at creating a disambiguation page assumes a definition of the word "country" that is not accurate according to many people and is bound to cause conflict. What the accurate definition is varies wildly from person to person.  We should keep the redirect to a common definition, and then use the hatnote for if people want something else. Pfainuk talk 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirecting the link to your so-called 'common definition' is neither accurate, and is bound to cause conflict too. I prefer a list to include all countries. And if that's not possible a disambiguation page is, though not quite desirable, an acceptable alternative. The existing setup is asserting an inaccurate yet overwhelming misconception, which is due to the fact that almost all countries are sovereign states. Baksando 23:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the page again. There is a hatnote at the top of the list of sovereign states to deal with any case that this redirect is not correct and another one should be selected. --PBS (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No. By having such a redirect we are asserting or at least implying that country = sovereign state. This is apparently not true. The hatnote fails to elaborate there are some countries that are not sovereign states. The current setup will make some users delete these countries from other lists of countries by arguing that these countries are not sovereign states. Baksando 10:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, as I say, a common view that the two are synonymous. Not the only common view, but a common view.  Given that there is no agreement whatsoever as to what else it might mean, it makes sense to redirect to the list we have that meets one common definition of that word.  Your proposed disambiguation page implies another, rather less common, definition of the word.  According to your proposal, it's possible for an uninhabited territory to be a "country", which (I would suggest) would be considered by most to be very counterintuitive.


 * It isn't as though the dependent territories and areas of special sovereignty aren't mentioned on the list of soveriegn states. And it isn't as though the second line on the list of sovereign states isn't pointing out what we've done.  I don't object to rewording the hatnote on the list of sovereign states, but I do object to converting this page into a disambguation page.  It's simply not necessary or useful. Pfainuk talk 11:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say the more common way is to include permanently inhabited dependent territories on lists of countries, i.e. countries ≠ sovereign states, but countries ⊃ sovereign states. (And you yourself consider Hong Kong a country too .) This common view is not being aware because out of the around 240 countries, 193 of which are generally recognised sovereign states (plus about 9 that are not generally recognised). Most permanently inhabited dependent territories are not important enough to be well known, and those well known ones, e.g., Bermuda and Greenland, are often thought to be sovereign states by laymen. Baksando 01:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You will note that I specifically define "country" in that box. But beyond that my personal opinions on what constitutes a country are irrelevant.  In this case, I feel that Hong Kong is best placed distinct from China because you have to go through a passport check to cross from Hong Kong to China - a criterion that makes perfect sense in the context of international travel, but that I certainly wouldn't want to see applied to an encyclopædic list, particularly if that list is intended not as a list of countries by some measure or criterion but simply as a definitive list of countries.  This is something I can do in my user space.  It does not purport to be a definitive list of countries - and because of that, when it declares its inclusion criteria, it can choose to define "country" in a way appropriate to the context.


 * The whole problem with a definitive list of countries is that there is no even vaguely universal definition of what constitutes a country. Like it or not, there is no consensus that countries ≠ sovereign states.  And among those who consider them different concepts, there is no consensus as to exactly what entities - other than sovereign states - are to be considered "countries".  Some might include dependent territories.  Others don't.  Some include some or all of the component parts of some sovereign states, but not others.  Others don't include any of them.  Some include states that are not generally recognised.  Others include some such states but not others, and still others do not include any such states.  Some include uninhabited territories.  Others don't.  Even the definition of "uninhabited" is not as clear-cut as it could be: what about territories inhabited by scientists or military personnel?  What if there's one or two people who live there full time, even while the scientists rotate?


 * Better to redirect based on a common definition to an article that mentions all of these entities (and more) and explain on that article. I'm perfectly willing to see a change to the hatnote or a note on dependent territories at the top of that article.  But I see no benefit in creating a dab page here.  All it means is that people have to click more things to find what they want.  And that makes the encyclopædia worse, not better. Pfainuk talk 17:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)