Talk:List of political and geographic subdivisions by total area in excess of 1,000,000 square kilometers

British Empire
British Empire area is much smaller in this list than in the British Empire article... wich one is correct?--Againme (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the number on this page seems larger than the one in the British Empire article. British Empire puts it at 33,670,000km<sup2, while this list says 	36,600,000km<sup2 . bd2412  T 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The British Empire article describes the area as "more than 13,000,000 square miles (33,670,000 km2)". The metric number is a direct conversion of 13 million square miles with two unjustified significant figures included. The 13 million square miles seems to be intended as a rough estimate, and not a precise figure as included in this list. Sadharan (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't leave it out of the list altogether. Perhaps we could mention in the notes that this is a rough estimate? bd2412  T 05:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The source used in the article for British Empire is sort of vague it stats "more than 13,000,000 square miles" which converts keeping in mind significant figures to 34,000,000 sq. km. The British Empire at its greatest extant between April 26, 1920 (the establishment of the Mandates of Mesopotamia and Trans-Jordan) and February 28, 1922 when Britain kicked Egypt out (apparently Egypt didn't get independence from Britain rather Britain got independence from the trials of ruling Egypt) the calculated land area is 36,472,818 sq. km. using the sourced data for each of the constituent countries and provinces elsewhere on Wikipedia.  I've calculated it several times receiving the same value each time.  However we aren't allowed to use such calculations as sources according to the Wiki guidelines.  Would it be appropriate to use the cited value converted with sig figs of 34,000,000 sq. km. which is roughly commiserate with the value prior to World War I (34,077,342 sq. km.) and also after the loss of Egypt and then Ireland in 1922 (35,421,706 sq. km.)?Lawfair (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there not some source in print that we can use for the maximum extent of the British Empire, and for the extent of the same at various other points in history? bd2412  T 19:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found one that says, "At the time of its greatest expansion in 1933, it covered almost 32 million square kilometres". Klaus J. Bade, Migration in European History (2003), p. 120. bd2412  T 19:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am impressed, how did you find a source for that so quickly? I've been looking for 10 months in my library and can't find anyone who saw fit to actually tell us how big the Empire was.  The value cited of 32,000,000 sq. km. is commiserate with what I calculate for that period as well after the independence of Iraq and Sudan and Jordan. Lawfair (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Google books, with the right selection of keywords. Cheers! bd2412  T 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian Federal Districts
I am having difficulty learning how to communicate on Wikipedia so if I do this wrong I apologize and request instruction. What is the view of the community on adding the 7 Russian Federal Districts created by Putin in 2001? Further if the community approves the idea, how would one properly distinguish between the Federal District of Siberia, and the Historical Region I recently added to the list? Lawfair (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No objection to adding those, so long as accurate area reports are available. This is intended to be a very broad and open-ended list. In terms of distinguishing, you might want to follow one with (historical) and the other with (created 2001); and note the distinction in the note section. Cheers! bd2412  T 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Louisiana Purchase
I am a little slow on the uptake I just noticed that on May 15 2010, the entry for the Louisiana Purchase was replaced with one about Chilean territorial claims. Was this a result of sloppy editing on the part of X.joorge who appears to have simply overwritten the entry on the Louisiana Purchase, or was it an appropriate removal on the basis that there was no citation for how the value was derived? For reference sake it is calculated based upon present states which comprise the Purchase, which I know is technically not allowed. I am quite certain that a reference can be found which provides an approximation of the size. Any guidance on this matter would be appreciated. Lawfair (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No reason not to have it. The removal seems to have been done carelessly. I replaced the figure with the one in the Louisiana Purchase article, and will check for sourcing there. bd2412  T 20:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Lawfair (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No source for the area in the article, but there are plently of online references backing up our figure. bd2412  T 20:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source used in the article is actually source 2 a PDF from the US Governments Bureau of Land Management, which lists the official size of the Louisiana Purchase as 523,446,400 acres, I ran that through my unit converter and came up with 2,118,312 sq. km. (7 sig figs in both). Thanks.  Lawfair (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Including claims on the extreme southern hemisphere
What is the opinion of the editors on including claims to Antarctica? I note that there are three new entries which specify the inclusion of claims to Antarctica. I get the impression that those entries were added in order to significantly increase the size of the countries they are attached to (Argentina and Chile), in the case of Chile it more than quadruples the area of the country. I also seem to recall (without looking up a source to reference, shame on me) that the UN Deceleration on Antarctica specifically prohibits making and using claims to territory there. Further aren't most claims to Antarctica spurious given that only Britain, France, Russia and the U.S. have any significant presence on the continent and any ability to make good those claims? Finally I would note that the entries which included Antarctica for Argentina and Tiera del Fuego, also included claims to the Falklands and the South Sandwich Islands, regardless of ones position as to what country has the most legitimate claim to those lands, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and list them on their own, and not include them as part of any other country? Especially since they are specifically not listed as territories (disputed or otherwise) of the U.K. Lawfair (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are verifiable claims to specified geographic areas, why not? bd2412  T 22:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Birth of a Nation
What is the view of others about when it will be appropriate to modify this list with respect to the nation of Sudan being divided? Can we do it now or should we wait until July 9th when the formal separation occurs? I note that there is already a page for the new Southern Sudan nation, but the page for the Republic of Sudan still lists its "current" data with respect to size. Lawfair (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I don't think it is a "nation" until July 9th, we have many entities on this list that are not nations, including not only subdivisions, but also empires and treaty areas. If we have an area that we can cite to with some authority, I see no problem in listing this now without specifically identifying it as a "nation". bd2412  T 01:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire is wrong
'Portugal Portuguese Empire 	10,400,000 	The Portuguese overseas empire at its greatest extent in 1815. Including but not limited to Brazil, Angola and Mozambique.'

This is huge mistake, the Portuguese Empire never included the present day territories of Angola, Mozambique and Brazil in any moment in History, even less in 1815. Angola and Mozambique territories were post-Berlin Conference creations, and Brazil declared independence since... 1822, that is 63 years (!) before the project of the pink map was introduced.

At most, the largest extent of the Portuguese Empire was around 9 million km2, including Portugal, Brazil, the Cisplatina, the coastal areas around present day Angola and Mozambique and some other near areas in the south and north, other Asian territories and other known islands.

10,400,000 is the sum of Angola, Brazil, Mozambique now (!), not ever in the Portuguese Empire. That is anachronic. --Good Hope Phanta (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is the Republic of China called Taiwan in this context? When it was at its greatest extent (governing China, Mongolia and southern Tibet), Taiwan was not even part of its territory.
Needs to change to the Republic of China, its only legal names under its constitution to this day. 147.147.191.0 (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)