Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area/Archive 1

New data
Given the above, I've replaced the CIA data in the first column with a new version. It uses the UN document we use(d) on the total area page as its main source, but this is supplemented by other sources where the calculation method used was apparently not appropriate.

There are still a lot of kinks to be worked out. The main one is the obvious conflict created with the other columns (the water percentages will have changed)—though this was also a problem in the replaced version. Since using separate data from different sources in each column is less than ideal, I will start looking for a UN document showing land/water areas. Any help in that regard would be appreciated.  Night w   14:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

sort by column is wrong
this is beyond my very limited Wiki knowledge so could someone please fix this...

when you sort by the numerical columns, e.g. Total in sq km, it treats the data alphabetically instead of numerically, so all the countries that have data starting with a "9" are listed before thouse with an "8" and so on... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.72.64 (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That happens anytime you have mixed content in a "field", ie. numbers and letters, the system will treat the column as alphanumeric and sort as such, where 99 comes after 100 (as bb would come after abc). The same happens when you put refs in the same field as the number that should be sorted. We should come to a consensus as to how we want to fix this list, should we remove the square miles as most of the world uses km2, should we separate the km2 and sq mi into separate columns, should we yell and scream at Wikipedia programmers to fix the underlying issue?--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can also add nts to each number to get it to sort right. I'd prefer to just get rid of the sq mi, since they're not required by WP:UNITS.  Night w   17:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew if we yelled and complained they would fix it! I did not know about that nts thing, it would have saved me some editing elsewhere!--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I forgot the convert template has a  parameter, so that should do it. I'll go through the table and add it tomorrow.   Night w   17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers Night w. That'll be much easier than the hack I've been using elsewhere. CMD (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * yes that would be annoying...  Night w   17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Table of the countries
Sorting the table is not working as it should be. Ranking is not working because it is sorting digit of a given number. Is compares starting with the first digit of each number(so 90 will come after 235, because 9 > 2). Same story for the number of Total are, Land area and Water area. Taartly (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is from a coding error, which is set to be fixed, per an above discussion. CMD (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I got distracted. It's done. Have a play around though and let me know if I've broken anything in the process.  Night w   17:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The "total" figures for the United States do not add up
The US' land figure is 9,161,966 sq km, water is 664,709 sq km, yet the total is 9,522,055 sq km. What? Where do these figures even come from? The note lists a whole slew of sources for the US' data. Why can't this be consistent with the rest of the world and use the United Nations Statistics Division data? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.55.76 (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the note? --hydrox (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute territories between China and India
Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract are controlled by China, claimed by India; while Arunachal Pradesh is under India control, most part claimed by China. When calculating the areas of these two countries, we should apply an identical rule to both countries, e.g. based on the Line Of Actual Control.
 * Do you have outside sources noting those areas or are you adding them up by yourself? I would have no objection to the latter, but I think we do need to note it here on talk (and I do agree with the line of actual control position). CMD (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

China
I'm not clear what is the source for the data on China. Total land area for China is shown to be 9,640,005 sq.km. According to the preamble on the page, "data are taken from the United Nations Statistics Division unless otherwise noted" and references "Demographic Yearbook—Table 3: Population by sex, rate of population increase, surface area and density. United Nations Statistics Division. 2008." That table shows area for China to be 9,596,961 sq.km. Note 3, associated with China entry, explains that "The area given is the United Nations official figure for Mainland China." Is this official figure different from data in Table 3 of the UN's Demographic Yearbook? If so, what is the source for that number (9,640,005 sq.km.)? WhyK? (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Who knows. Must've been changed recently along with a lot of others it seems. I'll change it back.  Night w   00:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

China is smaller than United States in the list, that does not make any sense!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.244.174 (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Since the three articles List of countries and outlying territories by total area, List of countries and outlying territories by land area, and List of countries by percentage of water area have overlapping information, it would make sense to merge them into one. This would also eliminate some contradiction that currently exists between the three articles. I can do the merger myself, but I just wanted to make sure no one had any problems with it. --Lasunncty (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you just going to make one larger table? That'd be fine in my opinion, although details on de facto states etc. may take awhile to fix! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to put it all into one table. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I have completed the merger. I used the CIA source in most cases as that was most complete.  All notes have been preserved from each page before the merge.  Feel free to make corrections/alterations as need be, or let me know if there are any concerns.  --Lasunncty (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with a merge and I'm willing to help wherever possible. My reasons for reverting:
 * I disagree with using the CIA as the main source for this. Firstly, its calculations are inconsistent, since from what I can tell it adds coastal waters to some entries but not others. Secondly, using any particular government as a main source for a country list is inappropriate where more diverse sources exist. Irksome politics are clearly introduced by the unbalanced inclusion criteria—Kosovo is included but states not recognised by the U.S. are absent, including any mention of the Palestinian territories in Israel's entry. Using another encyclopaedia or even the UN would be better.
 * I also disagree with diverging from the ISO criteria, as has been done with the addition of Antarctica and the exclusion of various entities previously mentioned. If we don't stick to a clear inclusion criteria, the list contradicts WP:LIST and risks opening it up to random additions.
 * My other concerns are mainly to do with content. The second sentence (which looks to be the only possible criterial element mentioned) doesn't make sense. The last sentence in that paragraph is probably the reason for the contradict tag at the top. There are flagicons in the notes section.  Night w   13:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The contradict tag is likely inherited from the issues brought up at Talk:List of countries by percentage of water area. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * These are legitimate concerns. However, each of the individual articles have the same concerns, plus the fact that they do not agree with each other.  At least if they are all in one place we can eliminate contradictions somewhat. ... I chose the CIA as the main source because it was most complete and up to date.  The UN source only has total area (which in most cases agrees with the CIA source anyway), does not include all territories, and is three years old.  I do not know of any other source that is comparable to the CIA source. ... I think Antarctica should be included because it is a very large area that is not included in any other territory.  (Plus, by the way, it is on the ISO list.)  Other entities which are not included (disputed/nonsovereign territories) have their areas already accounted for, and can be mentioned in the notes column. ... The second sentence makes sense to me. ... The notes and references do need a lot of work, but since they were inherited from the individual pages before the merger, the problems there are not new. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't realise that Antarctica was on the ISO list. That's fine to include then I guess. But any other divergance from this would be unacceptable. Our guidelines for lists require a verifiable inclusion criteria. This is essential for disputed entities, where we simply cannot use the U.S. government's POV as our criteria. I will look for a more up-to-date and complete source from the UN, or from an affiliated organisation.  Night w   11:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed merge. bd2412  T 16:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Working out the various kinks here. Should be finished soon.  Night w   02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Working out the various kinks here. Should be finished soon.  Night w   02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Discovered more problems with the WFB. The main one being that it appears to be a collation of data from different sources. So it's taken the area published by the Dutch government for the Netherlands, and the area published by the Canadian government for Canada. The U.S. itself seems to use a different method of calculation (includes coastal waters) than used by other countries. It leads to obvious disproportions in figures (compare the figures for British Indian Ocean Territory and Solomon Islands). It also seems to prefer rounding figures to the nearest hundred. Lastly, comparing it with UN and World Bank data from 2007, it seems outdated.  Night w   14:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the removal of uninhabited dependent territories, they have an area and should be included. CMD (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that note in the lead. It's not actually correct, so I've removed it. Unless you can see any specific ones that are missing...?  Night w   11:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I also merged the units column. It doesn't do much to reduce clutter. WP:UNITS doesn't actually require us to present non-SI units, so the sq mi figures can go if it looks too haphazard.  Night w   12:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That was a BIG mistake to merge the pages. Everything is so confusing, information is changed and is incorrect, everything is so different, it is just too overwhelming. It was much better when there were separate pages, now everything is mushed together in an unattractive matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with CMD. That is, I disagree with the removal of uninhabited dependent territories; they have an area and should be included. For example, US Minor Outlying Islands (UM) comprise 34.2 square kilometers of land area and 267 square kilometers of water (lagoons) area. Jeff in CA 12:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

States with limited recognition
I actually wouldn't mind seeing these in the list, although I don't think they should be numbered, and their area should still be included in the claimant state area, with appropriate notes on both. As it currently stands, all are mentioned in footnotes except Kosovo, which is mentioned in the prose Notes. CMD (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. An alternative solution would be to have a separate section for disputed states. (And Kosovo is now a footnote; it should have been there before, but a code error caused it to appear in the table. Bazonka (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value of a separate section, considering the point of this article is to present a single list. So to be clear, my proposal is
 * Create separate, but unranked, entries for states with limited recognition.
 * In these entries, have a quick note about their being claimed in their note section.
 * Bring information about them in their parent state note section out from behind a note, as it's quite important.
 * CMD (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I suggested a separate section is so that we don't get double counting. It would be nice for the areas given in the list to add up to the earth's total land surface area, rather than counting some places twice (e.g. Kosovo's area counted both under Serbia and under Kosovo). However, this is not a big deal, and I'm quite happy with your proposed changes. Bazonka (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I added them, but only the total area so far. Do they work? CMD (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article includes Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Transnistria and Western Sahara. By analogy, it should also include Azawad and Tamil Eelam. Jeff in CA 12:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Åland Islands
Is there any particular reason why the Åland Islands was deleted? Jeffrey (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Night w kindly provided an explanation for his edit in the form of an edit summary, which you can read by reviewing the diff you linked to. An edit summary is a small piece of text intended to inform other editors, such as yourself, on the particular reasons why an edit was made. To save you clicking on your diff and reading the edit summary on this occasion, I'll explain here: the Åland islands are not a country, they're an autonomous region of Finland, and their area is included in Finland's total. As this is a list of countries and select dependent territories, places that aren't countries or are dependent territories already included in their controlling country don't belong in the list. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  13:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it already when I started this section. The Åland Islands is among those 'selected dependent territories' that are usually listed together with other countries. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Look for Finland in the list, and read note 22 next to it. The Åland islands are included in Finland's area, they're not listed separately. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  03:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * • Jeffrey is correct.  The Åland Islands (Code AX) is among those 'select dependent territories' that are usually listed together with other countries. Check the various lists of "Dependencies and other overseas territories" on Wikipedia, Wiki Commons and elsewhere: the Åland Islands invariably are listed.  Note 22 or no Note 22 (applies only to how the one person who entered it saw it), the Åland Islands should be listed separately. Also the Wikipedia article states, "The Åland Islands are governed according to the Act on the Autonomy of Åland and international treaties. These laws guarantee the islands' autonomy from Finland."
 * • Secondly, not listing the Åland Islands is inconsistent with the actual listing of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba (Code BQ), which are Dutch "municipalities," and various French territories that are "overseas departments."  To their "controlling countries," these territories are considered integral.  However, they also are invariably listed on Wikipedia, Wiki Commons and elsewhere.
 * • Jeff in CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing Dependencies and other overseas territories
The following outlying territories are commonly included on various lists of "Dependencies and other overseas territories" on Wikipedia, Wiki Commons and elsewhere. They are missing from this list and should be included:


 * Akrotiri and Dhekelia
 * Åland
 * Ashmore and Cartier Islands
 * Clipperton Island
 * Coral Sea Islands
 * Paracel Islands
 * Spratly Islands
 * United States Minor Outlying Islands


 * Jeff in CA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff in CA (talk • contribs) 12:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

France's overseas departments/territories
I don't understand the rationale for excluding these from France's data. They are legally part of the French Republic. 71.205.174.204 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

France
France is quite strange, in that its total area is less than its land area. 551,500 and 640,427 respectively. This also doesn't match the France page, which gives the former as 674,843. If that were correct, the ranking at 49th would be incorrect and it should be up around 41st. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.119.57.82 (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's because I split off the overseas departments into separate entries. Not sure whether that was the best thing to do. I still haven't gotten around to finding a land-area source from the UN.  Night w   16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

France's total area is 674,843 (according to the wikipedia page). This is the correct number. This number includes all of France's integral parts, not just Metropolitan France. If you only include Metropolitan France, it would be like only including the contiguous United States in the US' area. French Guiana, Martinique, etc. are all integral parts of France and need to be included in the area; they are not just territories, they have the same status as Corsica, or even Paris (this being a true part of the country). Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we are five months later and this problem is still not fixed?? What is wrong with this site?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.190.156 (talk) 07:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

United States Pacific Island Wildlife Refuges
This is not a territory, and should be removed. Instead the individiual territories should be listed.XavierGreen (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Different Areas?
The recognized area of the US is 9,826,675 km2 and is the third largest country in the world. China's recognized area is 9,569,960 km2 (as currently listed) and is the fourth largest country in the world.

Anyways, the problem is that this page lists different areas than the actual country's page. For example, the US page lists the area correctly at 9,826,675 km2 while this page lists it as 9,629,091 km2. Why? You should include the same, and CORRECT areas on both pages.

Also, this page is totally screwed up. It should be like it was before, like a couple of months ago. For example, the territories/dependencies are listed the same as countries with the only difference being italicized. This is really confusing and some may not see the difference. You should not include numbers on the territories.

And why is Antarctica included? It's a continent not a country! Why include it just because no country's a part of it? Why don't you just include the moon while you're at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.190.156 (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Antarctica is included as per the discussion above (near the top of this page). Shoe (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Canada
Isn't Canada being "The Real Largest country in the world and the Western Hemisphere by total area" wrong and/or meaningless?209.2.229.166 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Vandalism, reverted. CMD (talk) 07:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Spain
Why it is mentioned to ceuta and melilla in do you her notice in the territories on Spain? They must not be mentioned, but the territory be included ado, are not special places of Spain.

--79.156.126.57 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * These territories are included in Spain's area figures, as mentioned in the footnote. --Lasunncty (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Denmark
There's a message saying:

Part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which makes Denmark the 12th largest country in reality.

This means that someone who takes this literally will put Denmark up at that location in the table and remove it from its current location in the table. Anyone know what to do with it?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As you can see under the discussion under Greenland above, Greenland like Denmark are part of The Kingdom of Denmark, which is not listed. So Greenland is not part of Denmark. The Faroe Islands are the third "state" in the Kingdom of Denmark and also listed separately. stasomat 2012-10-05 14:43 UTC.

Rank-order column (1,2,3) could be static and separate
See Help:Sorting. See the section about adding a separate, static rank column (1,2,3) next to a table. This makes the table easier to update. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea, but I don't think it would work here. This method doesn't account for rows of different sizes or for unranked entries. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right. Looking at the table again, I see that with a notes column the number of lines in a row could change easily depending on screen size. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

POV tagged
This article was tagged in relation to China and its area. A note is already added to explain this. I have remove these as inappropriate. Murry1975 (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Countries where the numbers to not add up.
Given the following rule Total Area <= Land Area and Total Area = Land Area + Water Area we have irregularities in the following countries.

64.211.102.18 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It also looks like some "countries" have more water than the total area. Why are we including coastal waters in this list, but not as part of the total area?--UnQuébécois (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for all of this is because the sources used are different. I haven't had much time to look for a replacement source for the other columns. Ideally, it should come from the UN stats department.  Night w   14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Fixed that 64.16.220.132 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Area of China
In the UN the official area of China is 9,596,961 sq km. There is an error in this article with its area. 10/4/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.121.11 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethiopia
I replaced the ~9.0% water area for Ethiopia. It looked unlikely and is not supported by the value at the Wik Ethiopia page. I used that latter figure (0.7%). If I missed some-thing, feel free to un-do, with an explanation. Kdammers (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Water area figures
Are they about inland waters (e.g. lakes, reservoirs, rivers), or internal waters and territorial waters? Jeffrey (147.8.202.204) (talk) 15:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you read the article, Jeffrey? The answer is clearly written there. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  19:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. The problem is that for some entries the figures cover only inland waters, while some other cover also internal waters. This is confusing and inconsistent. Jeffrey (202.189.98.142) (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Internal waters and inland waters are the same for many countries, measured from the coastal baseline. Can you list the countries you believe have incorrect figures? – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  03:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article points out that some entries include coastal waters, but that then makes the water area column meaningless. As for an example where either one or the other figure must be wrong are Antarctica (0% water) and Greenland (81.05%). In Antarctica ice is clearly not counted as water, yet in Greenland it is. (In fact Antarctica does actually contain a number of hyper saline lakes). What about other countries with ice caps (Canada, Iceland, Norway etc.) are they included as land or water? If the method of measurement is not consistent for all entries, perhaps a colour coding scheme (or something similar) could be incorporated to indicate the methodology used to calculate the data. Just a suggestion...1812ahill (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * what about the „archipelagic waters” of countries like Indonesia, Japan and the Philippines? according to the wikipedia article linked, archipelagic waters are included with inland water bodies, yet they obviously are not counted in the total area since —looking on a world map— Indonesia with its archipelagic waters is visibly not smaller than DRC or Saudi Arabia. Marxolang (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those triangles
How do the triangles work? I clicked on each of the small black triangles at the top of the rank column. In one case, the areas got larger as I went down; but in the other case even though the numbers got smaller, the "largest" one was Eritrea. I don't understand. I thought one of them would give Russia, Canada, the U.S./China etc. at the top. In any case, there should be an indication of what the triangles mean. Many users will have no idea that they are tools.Kdammers (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ecuador
Ecuador's entry in the table is odd: the land area excluding water bodies is larger than the total area. Maybe it shrinks when you add water, like a woollen sweater or George Costanza. Nankai (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Crown Dependencies/Overseas Territories of the United Kingdom
I've noticed that Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories of the United Kingdom, such as Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man etc. have "United Kingdom" in brackets next to them. I find this misleading, as they are not part of the United Kingdom and all are self-governing. They are however possessions of the British Crown, so I can see where the "United KIngdom" in brackets comes from. Surely this should be changed to either "British Crown Dependency" or "British Overseas Territory" where appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrmrbr (talk • contribs) 18:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

UK total figure?
Where does the total of 1,985,758 km2 come from? This is almost ten times the sum of the figures given for land and water areas. I know the note says that BOTs are included, but these together total less than 20,000 km2.Anonymous watcher (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Sudan?
How is Sudan's area N/A? Many countries have border disputes, and the other party (South Sudan) is listed. Sudan must be given some sort of figure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.7.248 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sudan's total area is given, only the land and water area are missing. There probably aren't any official sources yet for the individual land and water areas of Sudan and South Sudan. SiBr4  (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

List contradicts itself
Data in the table contradict iteslf in many entries. Examples (in square km): 1) India: water area: 314,070 + land area: 2,973,193 that equals: 3,287,263 but the total area column states:3,166,414; 2) Colombia: warer area: 100,210 + land area: 1,038,700 that equals: 1,138,910 but the total area column states: 1,141,748; 3) Mauritania: water area: 0 + land area: 1,030,700 that quals: 1,030,700 but the total area column states: 1,025,520 (So the total area is smaller than the land area?!!); 4) Egypt: water area: 6,000 + land area: 995,450 that quals: 1,001,450 but the total area column states: 1,002,000; 5) Tanzania: water area: 61,500 + land area: 885,800 that quals: 947,300 but the total area clumn states: 945,087;...

This list is an exampl of terrible Wikipedia's inaccuracy and unreliability. Some of these mistakes are clearlz visible to the eye even without counting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.181.138.240 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1
How can this list possibly claim to have anything do to with ISO 3166-1? Antarctica is on the 3166-1 list, but not ranked here, while the Spratly Islands or the Coral Sea Islands are not on the ISO 3166-1 list, but ranked here. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you mean by "not ranked here"? It's listed right below Russia. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get a ranking number. And what about the non-ISO islands? 109.99.71.97 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

"Australia is not an island"
(This doesn't violate WP:NOTAFORUM; it relates to an edit summary of an edit that someone made.

Can anyone finish this sentence:

Australia is not an island, not just not considered an island by most geographers, but absolutely not an island, not only because it is big (more than 3 times Greenland,) but also because... Georgia guy (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my edit summary sounded like it's an undisputed fact that Australia's not an island, but the largest landmass of a continent (in this case Oceania), the continental landmass, is normally not considered an island. Otherwise the three largest islands would be Afro-Eurasia, America and Antarctica. SiBr4  (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Indonesia:"Largest country wholly on islands."
What about Australia ?Robincard (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The largest part of Australia is considered the continental landmass of Oceania, and therefore isn't an island. SiBr4 (talk) 08:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I just posted a similar comment, then noticed your much earlier one.

You are right. Australia's territory is totally on islands (unless they're trying to suggest that Australia itself is not an island) Montalban (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Largest country wholly on islands.
The article claims that Indonesia is the largest country wholly on islands.

Australia is larger, and is wholly comprised of islands (as most nations don’t recognise its claims to territory in Antarctica.)

Therefore the claim in the article is false.

Montalban (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The Australian mainland, like other continental landmasses, is normally not considered an island. If continents were considered islands, every single country would lie "wholly on islands". SiBr4  (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

someone deleted canada
Cannot add back; Wikipedia gives time out. Thanks...--209.188.55.4 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem when editing this article: when clicking "Save Page", it loads an error page, but does save the edit after a while. Anyway, Canada and China are back. SiBr4  (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks like you succeeded, actually, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area&diff=541775401&oldid=541772107. But thanks for reporting it. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

3⁄4
I dislike the use of 3⁄4 in the table as the number of China and the United States. They might want it to be interpreted as "three or four", but to me, it looks like the fraction "three fourths". Any thoughts?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The nts template used for sorting also reads the "3/4" as 0.75. Clicking the "Rank" column moves the US and China above Russia and Canada. SiBr4  (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * List both as 3rd. Like how usnews grad school ranking does things.

I corrected China and US information
Please do not undo me without reading and source checking first! A lot of information prior to my edits were wrong and w/o source. Also, notes were a garbled mess that made no sense. I sourced some stuff and clarified and condensed some notes. Most importantly, I added a new note section on South China Sea Dispute, which is relevant.
 * I haven't changed the captions back, but I've reverted the addition of territorial waters to the US, as there's no reason to be inconsistent here, even if the Factbook has chosen to. CMD (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Kosovo
Kosovo should be ranked.KOSOVO IS COUNTRY,not depent country,IT'S INDEPENT!Not every country regonised Kosovo but it is country! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikinikolananov (talk • contribs) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just an angry Kosovan!--95.116.228.183 (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The Moon
As much as I like the idea of the Moon being considered the territory of the United States, by international treaty, it is not. Lordcheeto (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sick patriot!--95.116.228.183 (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

United States
The area of the United States is 9,526,468 km2. Source: Encyclopedia Britannica (online). 5/9/2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.125.254 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How can both the United States and Canada be the largest countries in the Americas? The numbers say that Canada is the largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.223.108 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of Canada's territory is internal waters, the United States has a larger land area. CMD (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The USA is 9,827,000 km² Source: Every book on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 18:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

China is wrong
the PRC's total land/sea recognized borders are only total: 9.5 sq km, 9.8 comes from unrecognized claims such as the South China Sea, Taiwan, and other claims and holdings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's well known, but nationalists keep changing it. This thing needs locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Water in Antarctica
Though (liquid) water area makes up a negligible amount of Antarctica, to claim it has 0 square kilometres of water is disingenuous. The five lakes in alone have a combined surface area of 24 sq.km., and there are over 150 lakes and ponds listed in  and its subcategories. Does anyone know a real figure to replace the spurious zero? Grutness...wha?  02:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

History of 3rd largest country dispute - in short
I want to clarify this for those who don't know. The United Nation Laws of the Seas (UNCLOS) was not passed until 1982. Before then only the NATURAL land boundaries can be counted as your country's total area figure. That was why only inland waters are included. After UNCLOS's passage, US set out to do a new geo survey as now coastal and territorial water can be included. EEZ are however, still excluded. Here is the PROBLEM: the US updated its own water area numbers BUT NOT China's. That is how US moved ahead of China in CIA Factbook ranking. If US can also survey China and give a revised water figure, and China still turns out to be smaller than US, I would gladly accept the finding. However, this has not been the case. Further note, the LAND figure for either has never changed, because for that to change, a country has to invade and annex more land. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.109.12 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is total bollocks, PCR includes territory they claim as theirs in their own figures, and have always gotten their way due to the threat of economic embargo and other threats. They had to bribe several South American countries 20 years ago to get the Taiwanese embassy downgraded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing politics here. Only inclusion of certain land and particularly, water area spaces. This is not about China taking over X or Y country. Note that every major power in the world does this for as long as history exists. For instance, US annexed Native Indian lands. etc etc. Also, China's area is based on what they legally encompass by intl standards. Please read the notes section; it does not include taiwan, hong kong, or any disputed areas in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.109.12 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Third largest country is DISPUTED
Encyclopedia Britannica lists China as third larges. That should be enough to convince people here that there at least exists a VALID DISPUTE. The article needs to reflect that! I have redone the section involving US and China and make it more understandable to casual readers who don't understand the difference of inland vs coastal vs territorial water spaces. Also I reworded the "Water Area" Definition as the old wording was simply untrue since US has territorial water and coastal water included.

It's only disputed if you're a Chinese nationalist who believes the territory of Taiwan, Tibet, parts of India, Russia, Mongolia, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, USA, and many others belong to them because people who lived 4,000 years ago once saw the land as they passed by. Even listing them as they are in Wiki is very generous view by people, despite the fact they are not even in control of half the provinces labeled "PCR" on the map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * please provide verifiable sources for your claim. Again, I must stress that this is not a discussion of politics. I don't agree nor disagree about what china does or doesn't do. The purpose of my edits are to post verifiable facts regarding land and water space areas in pertinence to China and US. Not about who are the "good guys" or "bad guys" in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.109.12 (talk) 00:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

About the list of Area of Bangladesh
This i sreally a great regreat that eventhough Bangladesh is an independent and Vommonwealth country but the name of this country is not in the list. I would like to notify this issue to the Wikipedia Authority to enlist the name of Bangladesh in this list. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.86.11 (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bangladesh is in the list, it's ranked 94th at 147,570 km2. SiBr4  (talk) 06:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect United Sates / China Information
I do not know who put in the current info for both China and the US, but it is incorrect. Please correct it by using this information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.208.248 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Total Area for Bosnia and Herzegovina incorrect
Unless I am missing something the figure for total area of B&H is wrong. Should be 51,197 km^2. PametUGlavu (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

ranking by area in infoboxes on country article pages.
so this might be related to the problem @ Talk:List_of_countries_by_area, there are at least a few country articles that are giving a wrong rank by area. Liechtenstein says #223 here, but 215 @ the Liechtenstein article in the info box. I see it with the smaller countries. what happened? I guess this needs to be fixed manually?? this page is sorting correctly, now, right? skakEL 21:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All the "area" / "%" columns seem to be sorting okay! Just the actual Rank # still needs tweaking to remove the dashes to make it work. (Don't want to have too many cooks in the kitchen type thing!) --UnQuébécois (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sorting is fixed. Many country articles will be at odds with the rank on this page. They should be fixed on sight, although there should really be a consensus as to whether all entries are to be ranked or just sovereign states.  Night w   15:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not transclude the rankings on to both this list and the infoboxes? I might set up some perfunctory pages in my sandbox. JamesEG (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Greenland
Greenland is not a country and it does not deserve its own spot on this list. It is a territory of Denmark, and if anything, should be included in Denmark's area or not at all. You should either remove Greenland or remove it from having a number. You are confusing people who read this list, making them think Greenland is actually a country. By putting territories on this list you also screw up the order of each country by size. For example, Saudi Arabia is listed as the 13th largest nation while Greenland is the 12th. In reality, Saudi Arabia is the 12th largest. You also do not even include that Greenland is a territory in the notes section, only at the top in which people are less likely to read. The page is called "List of countries by area" not "List of countries and dependent territories by area." I suggest making another page and calling it "List of dependent territories by area" so Greenland, other territories, and countries can have proper recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.79.126 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, not to be confused with Denmark, another autonomous country in the Kingdom of Denmark. It is akin (Not exactly) to the relationship some of the Commonwealth Realms have or have had with the the UK. But Hawaii on the other hand should not be in this table imho.--UnQuébécois (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Greenlands relationship to Denmark is quite different to the commonwealth realms relationship to the UK. Greenland is represented in the Danish parliament, and is legally a full part of Denmark. It however has such extreme amounts of autonomy it is often considered separately to Denmark proper, such as in ISO 3166-1. We based inclusion around ISO 3166-1 (although obviously differences exist). CMD (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Akin : essentially similar, related, or compatible. The situation is also similar to Puerto-Rico's place in the USA. There are no two political systems in the world that are exactly the same, but the current Greenland situation in the Kingdom of Denmark has similarities to the Commonwealth Realms (especially historically). — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 21:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I definitely agree that the realms pre Westminster would be comparable to Greenland now. I'd say the closest equivalent to Greenland now would be Hong Kong and Macau. Technically part of their larger country, but functionally separate. It's probably worth noting the status in the Notes I think. CMD (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at a world map right now and there's no way Greenland (or Denmark including Greenland) should be down at number 12. It's fairly close in area to USA, China, Brazil and Australia, but I acknowledge that they're all a bit bigger. But Greenland being smaller than India, Algeris, Congo? GTF outta here. It's easily number 7 on the list because it's easily twice the size of Argentina and nearly three times the size of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.98.175 (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Make sure you are looking at an equal-area map projection (examples here). A Mercator projection for instance (which is not equal-area) grossly enlarges areas near the poles. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point, Mercator are the Foxnews of maps (distorting the truth). Looking at some of those images you linked to, it is clear that Greenland is smaller than I thought, but it still *seems* like it would be higher up the list than 12th, although I guess it's not actually true though. Thanks ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.181.237 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Zimbabwean Waters?
I am a little unsure about the figure claiming that Zimbabwe is 1% water. Looks like potential vandalism to me, as the figure is exactly 1, and as a landlocked country, the only water I can think of in Zimbabwe are some rivers and Lake Kariba (a reservoir on the border with Zambia.) Can somebody please explain/verify this? Thanks!Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of countries by total area (graphical)
There's nothing of substance on this page besides the charts, so why not just place the charts on the main article? ❤ Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  ( 偉特 ) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Strong Support This one's common sense. Countries by total area and same plus territories... by area. Put the chart on the list page and make that page better. Why has this languished better than 3 months? Cesium 133 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Quite right - no need to have two pages should be merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theglade (talk • contribs) 19:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ Seems good to me! Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Antarctica's lakes
Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Vosto) says there are more than 140 lakes in Antarctica. If that isn't reputable enoubh, how about http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19196175, www.newscientist.com/.../mg21328475.200-myster..., www.msnbc.msn.com/.../strangely-moving-antar..., www.guardian.co.uk › News › World news › Antarctica, J Laybourn-Parry, DA Pearce - … of the Royal  …, 2007 - rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org, or B Steven, R Leveille, WH Pollard, LG Whyte - Extremophiles, 2006 - Springer ?

The dimensions and topographic setting of Antarctic subglacial lakes and implications for large-scale water storage beneath continental ice sheets

JA Dowdeswell, MJ Siegert - Geological Society of …, 1999 - gsabulletin.gsapubs.org estimates the total lake surfface area in the Antarctic at 54,000 km2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 01:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Percent of Earth surface
I think it would be useful to have a "percent of Earth's surface" (or "percent of Earth's land surface") column similar to the "Percent of world population" column on the "List of countries by population" page. --Khajidha (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just would like to second this request; when I was examining the table I thought that this would have been a very interesting data to have available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.31.13.5 (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Third. - the WOLF  child  19:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

United States and China
Official area in United Nations: U.S. (9,629,091 sq km) and China (9,596,961 sq km). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.181.90 (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As it explains in the notes, the figure for the U.S. includes territorial waters. It makes no sense to have them included in that entry but none of the others.  Night w   06:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: The total area of U.S. including territorial waters is 9,826,675 sq km. Source: CIA World Factbook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.252.174 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, sorry, my mistake. The figure given by the UN includes coastal waters, while the figure given by the CIA World Factbook also includes territorial waters. This is all explained in the notes section.  Night w   18:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the difference between 'territorial waters' and 'coastal waters'? Because both seem to go to the exact same Wikipedia article which doesn't seem to make a distinction between the two. If territorial waters is 12 nautical miles from the coast, what is coastal waters? Ww7439 (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Greenland Island/Continent
The question of what a continent actually is is very confusing. As such, I have removed the reference to Greenland being the largest island that is not a continent, as Australia is not necessarily its own continent; that depends on what you reference.

150.101.218.7 (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Australia is a continent, Greenland is mostly ice with little land underneath hence it isn't really an island.--Empire of War (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Better accessibility
This page and all pages with numerical data and tables should have a link for getting the data in text mode, or some downloadable format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.59.48.233 (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What is World and Antartica doing in a list of countries?
Proposal - Separate them from the main table. Anandcv (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Antarctica does not belong. It is a continent, not a country. It should on a list of continents, somewhere... - the WOLF  child  18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Antarctica is included in ISO 3166-1, which this list is based on. It is not ranked to show that it is not a country or dependency.  Plus, some countries do have territorial claims there, though they are not recognized internationally.  --Lasunncty (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So? This is a list of countries. That's a continent. Add it to the list of continents. - the WOLF  child  00:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As noted, it is included in the ISO list, and the lede text of this article makes clear how the matter is approached. Removing it altogether is not a gain for the reader. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

current usa and china numbers
current numbers include LAND+INLAND WATERS+COASTAL WATERS. There is no reason to include coastal waters for USA but not for China. China's coastal water area is calculated the same way as USA and comes out to 9.7 sqkm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.92.171 (talk) 08:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Area given for China was computed how?
The article gives the area of China as 9,706,961 km&sup2;. I'm flagging this as dubious for reasons that have nothing to do with disputed borders or the status of Taiwan.

According to the article and its notes, "Data are taken from the United Nations Statistics Division unless otherwise noted", and "Entries in this table giving figures other than the figures given in this source are explained in the associated Note."

Well, for China that UN document shows an area of 9,596,961 km&sup2;. Note that the difference is exactly 110,000 km&sup2;. All by itself, this fact strongly suggests that the number in the article was obtained by adding a rounded or estimated number of 110,000 km&sup2; to the sourced number. In other words, it strongly suggest sthat the 9,706,961 is being given with false precision and may be off by thousands of square kilometers.

As promised, there is a note in the article, but it does not really explain where the number 9,706,961 is supposed to have come from. It talks about the figures given in different sources without explaining, as it's supposed to, what sources were actually used. Omitting its own footnotes, the note reads:


 * The ranking for world's third largest country is disputed due to (1) conflicting information from different sources; and (2) differing methods on how land and water areas are calculated. The Encyclopædia Britannica lists China as world's third largest country (after Russia and Canada) with a total area of 9572900 km2.
 * Other figures: The figure given by the UN (9596961 km2) excludes Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan. It also excludes areas under China's control but claimed by India (Trans-Karakoram Tract and Aksai Chin). It further excludes coastal and territorial waters. The CIA World Factbook lists China as (9596961 km2), similar to the UN figure.
 * The water area for China includes only inland waters. The extent of China's coastal and territorial waters are currently unknown due to Territorial disputes in the South China Sea.
 * See Territorial changes of the People's Republic of China for further information.

For example, it says that the UN document excludes Taiwan but it does not say that Taiwan was included in the area given. Was it? I don't know. Given that the article shows Taiwan as a separate country, including its area under China as well would be inconsistent. But whatever is being done, the note needs to clearly say what it is. And if the area was computed by adding one or more numbers to the UN's number, all of those numbers need to be sourced.

--50.100.193.107 (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with this. I too wondered where the number 9,706,961 came from. I searched for a source but couldn't find anything. Personally, I think the figure should be changed to the UN's number of 9,596,961.


 * However, I also think the United States' figure should be changed given that its number includes coastal waters which is inconsistent with the rest of the list.


 * The United States Census Bureau gives a breakdown of the numbers:
 * Land Area - 9,147,420
 * Inland Waters - 223,798
 * Great Lakes - 155,293
 * Coastal Waters - 111,848
 * Territorial Waters - 193,148


 * TOTAL - 9,831,513


 * Now this total obviously includes coastal and territorial waters, and is very similar to the CIA WorldFactbook's number of 9,826,675. So a simple solution is just to exclude coastal and territorial waters to get a number of 9,526,517 (which is almost identical to Encyclopedia Britannica's number of 9,526,468).


 * Regarding the issue of Taiwan. It is not included within China's area. The CIA and UN have the exact same area for China, but on the CIA website it specifically says Taiwan is listed separately.


 * Long story short, I think the table should be...
 * 3) China - 9,596,961
 * 4) USA - 9,526,517


 * Sources -
 * http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0358.pdf
 * http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crname=China

Ww7439 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This problem is not isolated to just the US and China. Area figures for many countries get changed all the time without explanation.  It would be good for someone to go through the list and revert back to UN figures, except in the few cases where there would be some reason not to.  --Lasunncty (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia area wrong?
Saudi Arabia is listed as having an area of 2,250,000 km2, but is ranked below Greenland, which has an area of 2,166,086 km2. Saudi Arabia lists the area as 2,149,690 km2, which would make the ranking correct. Kesshaka (talk) 14:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It was recently changed without explanation to the current number a number of times. I will change it back. XFEM Skier (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The data in the article is explicitly sourced to the UN population stats table (including area) and it gives the 2,149,690 km2 figure, hence this is the figure that should appear in this article, even if it is disputed in some quarter.  Dwpaul  Talk   16:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrated parts of a country listed separately?
Why are we listing integrated parts of France separately from its regions? They're not dependencies... Rob (talk | contribs) 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * While they are administered by France, they have a different legal status than the regions/departments. Plus, they are listed separately in ISO 3166-1, on which this list is based.  --Lasunncty (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nope. Although some of the overseas sub-divisions of France have there own ISO 3166 codes, FR includes its entire territory. See its listing at iso.org. Can we please have a listing including all of France? And can we please avoid incorrectly claiming French Polynesians, among others, don't live in the French Republic? Its absurd for Wikipedia to contradict French law and the United Nations. Rob (talk | contribs) 00:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * How is the relationship between French Polynesia and France different from that between Aruba and the Netherlands or Puerto Rico and the United States, just to name a couple examples? --Lasunncty (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rob984 that we should have a total figure for France. Arbua is actually an integral part of the Netherland state as well. It's a legal situation, which doesn't directly correlate with how the relationship actually works. CMD (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If French Polynesia should be listed separately from the regions of France, then surely many other regions should also be listed separately from their countries, such as Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain, and Catalonia and the rest of Spain? They even have there own independent Police forces unlike French Polynesia. By that basis, this list is going to get a lot longer... Rob (talk | contribs) 17:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I realize that every country has different laws, and I admit I am ignorant of most of them. But as I understand it, French Polynesia does not have the same status as Alsace, for example.  I don't see how Northern Ireland and Catalonia compare, because they do have the same status as the other divisions of their respective country.  If I'm wrong, please correct me.  I wouldn't mind putting the total in the notes column, but I'd be against combining all the separate lines into one.  --Lasunncty (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Northern Ireland is a very poor example, because it has a very different status to Scotland, or Wales, or London, or the English Regions. The UK has no standard structure, quite uniquely. No French Polynesia does not have the same status as Alsace, but the Northwest Territories don't have the same status as Ontario, and we don't say that makes either not part of Canada. CMD (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * After a little reading up on the topic, I now see the distinction you are making. The Dependent territory article explains it pretty well.  How do you suggest we go about showing that on this page?  In the case of France, for example, perhaps we could list the total, and then (in the same table row) break it down into its components.  --Lasunncty (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Crimea and Sevastopol
Are Crimea and Sevastopol being included in the total land area of both Russia and Ukraine right now? Because that's what the article appears to be saying, but it isn't very clear. And counting the same land as part of two countries doesn't really make any sense.

Also, since Sevastopol is part of Crimea, does it really need to be listed separately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevec25 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone moved it from Ukraine to Russia a little while ago and then someone put it back on to Ukriane but did not remove it from Russia. I reverted a removal from Russia today because it only removed the note and not the area. I had an older diff open that I wanted to check but have not had time and can see that in basically one month (since 2-27) there have been 58 different versions of this page, which seems ridiculous considering borders don't change that often. I think that according to the guidelines of this article Crimea and Savastopol should be considered part of Ukraine as to the best of my knowledge the UN still recognizes them as that. XFEM Skier (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the occupation of Crimea by Russia has not been internationally recognized, we should not be including it in Russia. Since most international bodies in the world recognize Crimean peninsula as part of Ukraine so should we. Goliath74 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Autonomous countries
I don't think we should be ranking autonomous countries and islands such as Greenland, Svalbard, and New Caledonia. We should list them but not rank them as they are not considered sovereign states. WhyHellWhy (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The rankings currently include all dependenty-type territories. I take it you propose it should be restricted to sovereign states? CMD (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that only sovereign states should be ranked, the other dependencies should be just listed without a ranking number. WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a bad idea, and it'd be a much easier to interpret criteria. CMD (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the information will be presented in a more clear way. WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Originally these territories were listed but not ranked, as you suggest. The rankings were redone in Feb 2012.  I would support going back to the original.  --Lasunncty (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes a lot more sense to go back to that version of this page WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands and France?
The Kingdom of the Netherlands and France need to be added for this to be a list of the world's sovereign states . These are both members of the United Nations par exemple. Not sure why their autonomous sub-divisions are listed. ISO 3166-1 codes are assigned to regions within sovereign states, and therefore do not define what are sovereign states and their dependent territories. –&#8202;Rob&ensp;(talk&ensp;&#124;&ensp;contribs) 13:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Do you agree with the above proposal of denumbering the non-states? That would work well with this proposal. CMD (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, they should be added as well as Kingdom of Denmark and other sovereign states that are not on this list. The page should return to its previous version of ranking sovereign states and only listing other dependencies. WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

page needs temporary protection
someone is constantly messing with the China vs USA issue again. Even though it has been discussed to death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.53.205.12 (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding 2 square kilometers removes a square mile?
In note 4, the text describes the different figures for the size of the United States. It says, in part, that in 1997 the CIA claimed an area of 9,631,418 km2 (3,718,711 sq mi) and in 2004, 9,631,420 km2 (3,718,710 sq mi). There must be a misconversion of units, because it looks like the claim increased by 2 square kilometers, but decreased by a square mile. I do not think that there was a change in definition of the kilometer or mile in that time. This error also appears in reference 9. Any help would be appreciated. Zginder 2014-06-21T17:51:46Z


 * It was just a rounding issue with the convert template. Now fixed.  --Lasunncty (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on the source given the original was correct there is not significance to the last digit so when you covert you should not add that significance. See Significant figures for more information about this. But basically 100 apples is actually 50 to 149 apples and 100. is just exactly 100 apples. XFEM Skier (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the source follows the significant figure rules. I doubt it does. Significant figures are also the worst way to express uncertainty, and this is one reason why. Zginder 2014-06-22T18:51:05Z

Taiwan should not be listed as a country
Taiwan should not be listed as a country. It is not a country. It is a providence of china. It is not listed as a United Nations member and United Nations does not agree Taiwan as a country.

Products descriptions from ebay listings states manufactured from Taiwan province of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuser80 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial topic of edits throughout WP, not helped by interventions by numerous anonymous IPs and, in this case, a SPA (single purpose account). According to one point of view, Taiwan is a province of China; according to others it is a country, and to others a state though not a country. Membership of the UN does not determine whether something is a country. The issue is fairly adequately addressed in the text on Taiwan. What is needed in the article here is a note in the article indicating the basis for calculating the area of China, and a separate entry on Taiwan, with a footnote saying that not everyone thinks Taiwan is a country. Removing it from the list would be an inappropriate solution.hamiltonstone (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The main topic here is Taiwan is not a country, according to world history, Taiwan's history. It is not calculated from area of china. or compare to instance Hawaii is independent country calculated from area of US? You comment says, according to one of view, that is politically incorrect. Most western countries support Taiwan to separate from China by political purpose. This has been long non-resolving issue in history because of political issues. Taiwan is not a country.

Best way to correct this is on wiki is put a footnote next to Taiwan (province of China). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.88 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I actually can't understand your post. I don't see why Hawaii is relevant - it does not claim, or seek, to be independent. I do understand your last sentence, but that seems to me to equate the Taiwan situation with that of, for example, Greenland. I do not think that is appropriate. Consider, as an alternative, the way the table presents Palestine.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

In your previous response you wrote " What is needed in the article here is a note in the article indicating the basis for calculating the area of China, and a separate entry on Taiwan, with a footnote saying that not everyone thinks Taiwan is a country. Removing it from the list would be an inappropriate solution." You are expressing the idea you think Taiwan is separate land from china then it is a country, that is not correct. Is Hawaii a country just because it is separate area from US? US support the idea of Taiwan to be independent country does not mean the land is already a independent country. Taiwan has never politically declared to be a country. It is a province of China. It is a separate land from China by area, that statement is correct.
 * You appear to be misrepresenting my point. The fact that Taiwan is separate from the mainland is irrelevant, just as the fact Hawaii is separate is also irrelevant. Taiwan is a difficult case, but it is self-governing and sovereign and has described itself as such, and to try and hide this by saying "it is a province of China" is a clear POV. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Taiwan is a province of China is a fact not point of view. Fact and point of view are completely separate object. A city, state, land, group, can have its own form of governing itself. Taiwan has its own form of government for its own land, but it is not a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newuser80 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Taiwan is a sovereign state since China was made. It is just only a not UN member but it is formerly China between 1945 to 1971. When UN change China as the People's Republic of China. Taiwan is in the list of sovereign states (but partially recognized and partially unrecognized).

If it is not a Un member then it is not a country? Example: From 1945 to 1990 is Korea. That means they're not a country from 1945 to 1990? From 1945 to 1956 is Japan. That means Japan is not a country if Japan didn't join the UN? From 1945 to 2000+ Coz i don't know! is Switzerland. That means they're not a country since no UN membership when the UN formate? 112.198.64.76 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Taiwan is a country!
 * Some of you, please inform yourself better next time when you talk about such a sensible topic. Both the People's Republic of China (China) and Republic of China (Taiwan) say that Taiwan is part of China. It's in the constitutions. PRC claims the island of Taiwan and RC claims the mainland. --2.245.205.220 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Largest Spanish speaking country

 * 1) 14 Mexico has this notation:  "Largest Spanish speaking country by area and population."  By population Trackinfo (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it since clearly Argentina is higher on this list and the population is not important to this list. I did not add it to Argentina because I don't see a huge benifit in it. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Country 164 is not on its own line
I happened upon this page and noticed that country 164 in the list is not on its own line. It appears to the right of country 163. I tried editing the list to correct this problem, but my knowledge of HTML or whatever language is used within Wikipedia is basically non-existent and I was not able to figure out how to correct the problem. So, I did not make any changes to the list or page but figured I'd mention the problem here in case someone with more knowledge than me wishes to make the correction. ZWSteinberg (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Where is France?
I was specifically looking for France and cannot find it on this list of nations by area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.88.119 (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia
the wrong map of russia

where is crimea?
 * I added the notes clarifying the question. Beaumain (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

US total area
With no offshore water, older sources gives an area of 9.3 million square kilometers. CIA World Factbook recently added a lot of offshore water and came up with 9.8 million square kilometers. Considering the US never signed the UN law of the sea, the US cannot legally claim any offshore water. In my opinion, the US area should be listed as 9.3 million square kilometers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Territorial water
Definitions are confusing me. If total area is "the sum of land and water areas within international boundaries and coastlines", and water area is "the sum of the surface areas of all inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, and rivers) within international boundaries and coastlines" (thus both exclude territorial water), then why is the Unites States' total area + territorial waters included? The lead states territorial water is not included, yet the United States' entry has a figure including territorial waters. Furthermore, why isn't this made clear??? Currently, unless the reader reads the citation note, they are being told that the Untied States' total area excluding territorial water is between 9,526,468 to 9,826,675 km2. That is completely misleading! You can't be assuming every reader will read the citation note surely? Rob984 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Territorial waters are not included unless otherwise noted." The U.S. is "otherwise noted" with one figure excluding, another including, territorial waters, which is why there's a range. And, yes, if you're careful enough a reader to note the discrepancy, you'll probably be able to read and understand the note, which seems clear enough to me. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus
Cyprus has been removed from the list, but seems to meet all requirements to be there. Wiki page says it is a country and has an ISO-3166-2 listing that per list rules means it can be included and is numbered. XFEM Skier (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Additions sources to support that it should be include is that it is a member state of both the UN and the EU. XFEM Skier (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about The Republic of Cyprus at all, of course that is a country, "Northern Cyprus" is the issue as it is not a recognized country. See Cyprus dispute. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I have in fact been removing the wrong Cyprus. I have been removing the Republic of Cyprus, which has full recongition and is a UN member and EU member, rather than removing The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which is not recognized at all and in neither a member of the UN or EU. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus
The so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is not recognized as a country by any other country in the world other than Turkey. It is not a member of the UN or the EU. It is an area of the Republic of Cyprus illegally occupied by Turkey. It is not a country, it is not a member of the UN (not even as a non-member observer state) so it should not be listed in the list of countries by area. This would create confusion as the area of the Republic of Cyprus is listed as the whole island whereas the TRNC is only listed as its part of the island. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There are other things listed on the list that have similar stories. It should definitely not be numbered and it was not. The standard for inclusion of non-numbered items is much loser. I am neutral on its inclusion but just wanted to let you know that someone might think it belongs there. XFEM Skier (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I re-did China and US entries
Now all numbers are SOURCED. And the dispute is clearly explained. Don't revert me for no good reason.

Sign your comments! Lightspeed2012 13:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

China
Source: http://health.gmw.cn/2012-08/02/content_4694441.htm

Some Chinese articles claim that China is actually the world's second largest country with a total area of 10.45 million square km, based on a secret national land survey in 1988. They point out that the widely used figure of 9.6 million square km is a wild estimate done in 1949, within 2 days after an order by Zhou Enlai, the then Premier of the PRC, using some low level estimation methods. They reckon the Chinese government chose to deliberately not release the real figure in order to avoid some unnecessary effects to their borderline negotiations with neighbouring countries.

So, should we add the real China figure instead? 120.16.11.122 (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

-I say no. Unfortunately there is too much chance of embellishment and bias on the part of the Chinese government. Kieran P. Clark (talk) 01:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Antarctica Is Not a Country
Antarctica is a continent. So why is it listed here? No other continent is listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.225.98 (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. I think that this region should be split up based on these territories claimed by other nations: http://zidbits.com/2011/07/which-country-owns-antarctica/ Kieran P. Clark (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed, now archived. The WP article is following the treatment given Antarctica by ISO 3166-1, as the lead makes clear. Antarctica has been claimed by a number of countries with somewhat controversial claims (some explained perhaps by geographical proximity, but Norway?). Dhtwiki (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Israel and Golan Heights
Currently Israel area does not cover the disputed and non-recongnized portion of Golan Heights. I believe this is with keeping with the list. Technically I believe that you could list Israel twice once with the area and no number (un-recognized) and once without the area and a number, but that seems like it would open up a can of worms for many disputed areas and just increases the my country is bigger match that seems to be all to common here already. I think the area should not be included Israel should be numbered appear once and the notes explaining the areas should be there. XFEM Skier (talk) 18:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that the status quo is a good solution. It is consistent with other entries and it is well explained. The user suggesting the change is accusing others of vandalism, but is not willing to discuss. Let's keep it as it is until a better solution is given and explained.--T*U (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)