Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 3

Missions vs. Buildings
This still hasn't been resolved so I'm going to keep brining it up. Our current embassy and high commission articles are a eclectic mix of archetectural and diplomatic prespectives and naming conventions. My perfered solution is to clearly seperate building histories from mission histories. The logic is simple. A mission can occupy any number of buildings during its existance. (How many embassies to Germany had to move from Bonn to Berlin in recent years? Dozens.)  A building may be used for many other purposes. (How many buildings have been used as chanceries or residences by multiple countries? Lots.) The model would be High Commission of Canada in London (mission history) which is seperate from Macdonald House and Canada House, the buildings which the mission operates from. Part of the solution, in my opinion, is to change our naming conventions to Fooland Embassy to Barland NOT in Barville. The embassy's seat might switch cities as the capital moves (Bonn to Berlin, Lagos to Abuja, etc.). They may simply open a new building because of the need for different facilities. One mission may own dozens of properties including chanceries, residences, consulates, etc. The history is continous at the level of the mission but the city or building has changed. Why wouldn't we do this? There is only one potential objection I can think of, countries changing their name but not their capital, and I have a solution to that. You might say, well an embassy in Moscow has always been in Moscow whether it was to the Soviet Union or to Russia. Right. Which is all the more reason to have a building history than can capture what went on in that building during the Soviet era, which is undoubtedly quite different from its modern functions. A even better solution might be to have seperate articles. Think of an embassy to China. It might have moved from Peking, to Nanking, to Taipei, and back to Beijing during the 20thC. Its history in each of those cities is related but seperate from the overall history of the mission. Can anyone give me a good reason not to do this? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not part of this group but
Bolivia–Russia relations, is it really that important and notable? --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering that Russia is a major world power, and Evo Morales has just recently been to Moscow, and the Morales is turning his attention to countries such as Russia, then I would say that yes, not only is it an important relationship for Bolivia at the moment, but the history of the relationship is also very notable, as it can go back hundreds of years. The article is under-developed, that is reason for expansion of the article. --Russavia Dialogue 13:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Diplomatic cables?
I noticed there's no article on diplomatic cables, any reason why? It seems like there would be a lot to write about - famous ones like the Zimmerman Telegram, Cable 243 etc, and their formatting and so on. I'd start one, but the lack of an article makes me wonder if it was some conscious decision not to have one? --AW (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject NATO
Hi, I'd just like to let you all know that I've proposed the creation of a NATO Wikiproject, you can find the discussion about it here. Cool3 (talk) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphans International
Help! A new editor, who is the CEO of this charity, has added a lot of non-notable information to this article. I know him personally and don't want to be the one to try to explain why he can't dump all that stuff into the article. Can anyone help, please? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for layout change in List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom
I think it's time that we reconsider the layout of this article. The List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa makes use of a table with direct links to the Embassy's or Consulate's article, gives an image and the address. With London alone having so many diplomatic missions it should have it's own seperate article like the Ottawa one, especially now there are enough articles on the Embassies. Nearly every Embassy has a website with the ambassador and address in it and it's not hard to get a local wikipedian to take a photo of the required Embassy. I would like to hear of other users opinions so please respond. 95jb14 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an on-going debate to establish rules for foreign relations articles that can be put up for deletion
There is an on-going debate to establish I guess some kind of rules for Foreign relations articles and how to devise I guess what should be put up for deletion. Anyone interested may want to head over and state their position.

See here CaribDigita (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Chile-Whatever relations

Is the Swedish consulate in Houston a career consulate?
I read this Houston Business Journal article about Sweden choosing Houston as a site for a career consulate in 2004: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/11/15/daily48.html?jst=b_ln_hl

The website here http://www.swedishconsulate.org/ refers to the "Honorary Consulate General of Sweden in Houston" - So is this a career consulate? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Ambassador of Russia to Austria
I have listed Ambassador of Russia to Austria for peer review, as I would like to take this to featured list nomination soon, but am looking for outside input on any improvements, etc which may be made to the article/list in order to improve it to give it greater chance of being passed. Please be kind, as this is my first time doing this, and it can be PR'ed at Peer review/Ambassador of Russia to Austria/archive1. Welcome any input anyone may have. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C.
Just a heads up - I've tagged the stub with your project.  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming
What would be the correct way to name the page Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations? (considering that the adjective "Bosnia–Herzegovina" causes ambiguity and "Bosnian" is mostly understood to refer only to the language) —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There used to be a guideline for naming the bilateral relations articles, but it was removed here. I suggest some sort of a naming convention is restored, because what we have now is chaos. We have adjective format in alphabetical and non-alphabetical order; country name format in alphabetical and non-alphabetical order; country name format with unspaced en dash, spaced en dash, hyphen, em dash etc.


 * I suggest the following format: all bilateral relations pages are named in country name format with en dashes. The en dashes are unspaced unless one or both countries have a space in their name, in which case the en dash is spaced (see WP:ENDASH). The country names use the short name of the country except when it's ambiguous (People's Republic of China, Republic of Congo). The country names are in alphabetical order. So we would have
 * Cambodia–Greece relations instead of Cambodian-Greek relations (country name format)
 * France – United Kingdom relations instead of France–United Kingdom relations (spaced en dash when one of the country names contains a space)
 * Brazil–Malaysia relations instead of Malaysia-Brazil relations (en dash, alphabetical order)


 * This would be correct according to the en dash guideline. Besides, most of the articles are already in country name format.


 * So to answer your question, the correct name for the article would be Bosnia and Herzegovina – Croatia relations. Just my suggestion. Jafeluv (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am new here, but think there should be some guideline. I note there has been recent edit warring over Anglo-, Sino-, Franco- etc.  Should htat not be the subject of a discussuion here?  Personally, I would support Anglo-French relations.  There would be a logic in placing the shorter name first.  I would support the use of adjectives, rather than nouns used as adjectives for countries.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (I moved your comment to the bottom, it was in the middle of mine) The problem with the adjective forms is that it's not always clear what is being referred to. "Argentine-Greek relations" might be unambiguous, but "Anglo-Greek relations" is not. According to wiktionary, Anglo- means "England, English" or "Anglo-Saxon". It's not the same thing as "United Kingdom". Sino- has the same problem, not making explicitly clear if we're talking about People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Empire of China or what. And what about the countries that don't have a commonly used adjective form (say, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo)? I think putting the unambiguous country name in the article title is the best solution. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the adjective form because that is what makes sense grammatically. "Greece relations"? It needs to be "Greek relations" and the addition of another country does not change this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

List of United Nations peacekeeping missions
nominated List of United Nations peacekeeping missions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion 0422  20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

French diplomatic articles
for the record, as an Englishman, relations between France and the USA are not something that overly concerns me. However, as a wikipedian, the quality of these articles is. I came across Consulate General of France in Atlanta through the new pages patrol, and have lent it the benefit of my copy editing and referencing expertise, then found Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. while trying to de-orphan the former, the latter being in an even worse state. I'm currently working on that one, though I wondered if someone here would be interested in taking a look at some of the related articles- many seem to be missing- London, for example- and lots are merely stubs, though for two of the most powerful countries on Earth, I would say these articles are of very high importance and need to be expanded, especially since the information is out there. Anybody who can dig me up a few sources besides the official websites, it would be greatly appreciated! A reply or talkback on my own talk page and I'd be much obliged! HJMitchell   You rang?  13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) NB: I've left a similar note on the talk page of WP:WikiProject France

A consensus for x-country & y-country relations articles? (Wikipedia wide)?
There's a bandwagon deleting various country relations articles based on if that nominator knows of ties or not. Is there any current movements towards establishing what should be the basic criteria of country vs. country relations articles???? For example: Some countries may not have relations as robust as others but should that preclude completely them from outlining what their relations is with that other country?

I've seen two different sets of criteria used to nominate articles and I think an established criteria set should be formulated. Some things I thought of and certainly could be considered. Silly things too like (Canada–Haiti relations) I mean hello Canada is working on a mission in Haiti. Barbados–Nigeria relations (heck most Barbadians today are decedents of Nigeria and Ghana.


 * Do the countries have direct missions to each-other's countries? If not- as a secondary option do they (at least) have a mission between one another via a third-party country?  E.g. Some countries have mission in Washington D.C. which for example might also cover other nations.  As a working example... Belize has a mission to Washington D.C., the D.C. mission also acts as a mission to Canada even though Belize does not have a resident mission to Canada to the best of my knowledge.

CaribDigita (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the article notate a level of trade between both countries?
 * Did the leaders between both nations open any significant form of high level negotiations between both nations? or visit each-others countries?
 * Are the governments between the countries creating any joint-venture projects in the article?
 * Do both nations have- or provide any cooperation to one another? i.e. a donor country relationship? E.g. Soviet Union for Cuba. Or Venezuela to Cuba etc.
 * Is the article entry well referenced to back-up all claims?
 * Did the countries go to war?
 * Should government references be permitted? Or should it have more independent-journalist references than it does government ones? I've heard both ways.  In one instance I've heard "no that article has too much government references" and then another time I heard "no that article has too much news references without any government references..."  This should be clearly defined.  E.g. lots of media claim that a "North American Union" is coming however the Government references in that article are being used to say it is just theory.  Other times such as in some of the country x vs. country y articles I'm seeing that too many government sources are listed and Wikipedia can't go by what two governments say.
 * Also how weighted should international fora be as it pertains to the creation of a "country vs. country relations" article. For example: I don't think it would be enough just to have an article that only says. "These two nations are members of: the UN, Commonwealth, La Francophonie, OAS, and "Andean Pact" and have that be the only thing in the article. There should be more substance I think in that example but how much.  Should there be a minimum criteria of "stub-iness" basically before it isn't even worth having an article for?
 * Are the nations members of a trade bloc? e.g. ASEAN, CARICOM, NAFTA, African Union, European Union. etc.?
 * Should there be an amnesty on sizable stub articles between two members of the same trade bloc. E.g. Say Germany-France (since that is the EU.) or Colombia-Ecuador (since that is Mercosur) or say Pakistan-Singapore etc. since that is ASEAN? To my mind it is obvious that since they are part of the same bloc their trade would only stand to grow and that might make it more notable.  Perhaps if an article isn't significant enough for having a full article and it is between two members of the same trade bloc should it just be reduced to the parent "Foreign relations of X" article instead. e.g. Greece and Romania for example if it wasn't a large article reduce it to either a header under Foreign relations of Romania or Foreign relations of Greece instead(as long as it is referenced).
 * Another criteria that I thought of for consideration. Alternately if you have have two places between the same block if the article is too "stuby" would it better to place it in country x and (bloc name). For example if you have an article between two nations of the EU.  Say one is Belgium.  If it is not worthy of having a full article what about if that article was reduced to say Belgium and the European Union.
 * A specific instance of this that I can think of all CARICOM nations have various levels of trade between one another but not all need full articles. E.g. there's an article Barbados-Jamaica relations.  I was thinking it might make more sense to reduce that to the Barbados and CARICOM article instead since ties with Jamaica aren't really huge but are there since Barbados and Jamaica make up two of the four countries of CARICOM designated as "Most developed nation" status and as such means they have certain responsibilities to the other "less developed nations" of CARICOM interms on contributions and the like.
 * Or are there any transient nationals living between both nations?
 * I am a newcomer to (and not formally signed up for) this project. However, I have been working on articles on the diplomatic relations of UK 1650-1850, mainly in terms of identifying heads of missions from UK.  It seems to me that there should be an article, (at least) if (1) there are (or have been) diplomatic relations (2) there has been a war.  That fact that we only have a stub should be no reason for deletion, as long as the possibility of expansion exists.  It is true that small countries will often have one ambassador covering a whole region (eg NW Europe); the example of the Belize Mission in Washington also covering Canada is cognate.  In these cases, perhaps the article on Belize-Canada should be kept as a stub, with a link to the Belize-US article.  I think that small numbers of expatriates would not be sufficient to warrant an article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mind me, I'll just but in! It might be an idea to merge them into one article- the existing one for the USA would probably be best, with a note explaining they share an ambassador. That should reduce the likelihood of deletion and solve notability problems. HJMitchell    You rang?  13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an update.... If you have an interest see here. or CaribDigita (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations
 * WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force
 * I agree we need a guideline for these articles, unless anyone else if currently doing this I'll probably prepare something over the weekend, based on the established format for official guidelines.  I'll take into account the above and the other proposals on this page, and then maybe post it on a sub page in this project so everyone has a chance to agree or amend it as they see fit before we introduce it to the community? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Pakistan relations
This article has been nominated for deletion- see WP:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Pakistan relations. I've tagged it for rescue and I wonder if anybody here has the expertise to help it out. HJMitchell   You rang?  10:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a invitation and welcome template for this wikiproject
Examples: Ikip (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:WikiProject invitation templates
 * Category:WikiProject-specific welcome templates

Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow
Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow - Embassy of Angola in Moscow A user proposed for deletion. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing List of diplomatic missions articles about SMOM

 * List of diplomatic missions of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta
 * List of diplomatic missions to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta


 * list of delegations of SMOM to international organizations:
 * list of diplomatic relations with SMOM:
 * list of diplomatic missions of SMOM to countries:
 * MISSING: list of diplomatic missions to SMOM

Most of the independent countries and also some unrecognized countries and the EU have such articles. As SMOM is a sovereign entitiy engaging in diplomatic relations with states maybe there should be articles for its missions too? Alinor (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston
Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston - Someone has nominated the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston
Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston - Someone has nominated the Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre - nominated for deletion
Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre has been nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding primarysources to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations
As this is of more general interest, I moved the discussion here instead of Talk:Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Bali ultimate had declined to answer any questions on his talk page.

Please be specific when commenting. Instead of saying, "'the sources' don't meet the criteria of 'Wikipedia' or some two-letter short-cut", please indicate "#1 doesn't need a reference as both are countries listed in the relevant ISO standard" or "the second part of #1 doesn't mention a reference and, as BLP requires to 'avoid repeating gossip', it should be removed." -- User:Docu 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC), updated 08:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All of the sources in the article currently are "primary" as they are defined here, for instance the government circulars on treaties. WP:RS may help you clear up the difference between primary and other sources. Hope that clears it up for you.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you list for which numbers you don't deem them appropriate and why? ("While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution") -- User:Docu




 * bgcolor="lightyellow"|
 * 
 * I've answered the question here. A primary source is a primary source. I won't explain why, in any fashion, why articles whose sources are primary sources need a "primarysources" tag. If you ask the same question of me in future, i promise i will ignore it.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 
 * 


 * }
 * I guess that concludes his contribution to the question. -- User:Docu 11:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the issue whether this article is on a notable subject, how primary sources are used seems to be a frequent point of contention. The problem with using primary sources is simply that any user can introduce a novel conclusion by solely using primary sources in an article; this is, AFAICS, the only reason secondary sources are preferred. However, a secondary source can easily become a primary source if it is cited as evidence for what the writer thought or believed -- hence confusion, frustration & nastiness ensues. As long as a primary source is quoted in a way that requires a minimum of interpretation, & no reliable authority on the topic claims the source requires any specialist knowledge, then it can be used -- but with reasonable care. For example, it's silly to insist that someone needs to reference a news story to say that Barak Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court today, when one can reference his nominating speech; that speech will be linked to in any case, since it's reasonable to expect the reader to want to read it. So in the case Docu cites above, unless there something unmentioned that contradicts my understanding, primary sources are used reasonably & responsibly. Complaining about their use is tendentious editing, & could lead to sanctions for disrupting Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move for Shirley Temple
There's a request here to move "Shirley Temple" to "Shirley Temple Black". Folks might like to weigh in with their opinions. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletionists at it again.
As you guys doubtless know there's been concerted efforts recently to delete as many of the bilateral relations articles as possible. There's been considerable support for these entires at the ADF pages but some editors have taken to trying to get articles removed through the back door.

So if you have a few minutes for helping to save existing articles its worth keeping an eye on this bot generated page that lists the pages currently proded for deletion, as well as the main  ADF page. Saving a prodded article is much easier than a ADF debate as you just have to remove the template from the top of the article and as a courtesy put a Oldprodfull tag on the articles talk page, and a Deprod tag on the prodders talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please mind WP:CIV - raising the "deletionist!" specter and making inflated claims about "concerted efforts to delete as many of the bilateral relations articles as possible" is a gross exaggeration. Seeking to remove random and patent trivia from an encyclopedia, and to do so in streamlined fashion where a debate would have precisely the same outcome, is hardly the alarming scenario you paint. - Biruitorul Talk 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything I've underplayed the passion some of you guys have for purging these entries Biratel. One of your allies declares an interest in "Reducing the number of X–Y relations articles dramatically"    (his italics)  another openly admits if concensus was there he'd "support deleting all bilateral relations articles"  (my italics), some of you  discuss tactics for deletion such as when it will be safe to use prod tags  - and recently there's been a continual flow of new ADF noms from various editors.


 * Im not apologizing for using the word deletionist to describe the sort of attention these articles are receiving. Its not a pejorative term . The encyclopedia would soon loose any value if detritus was never removed, and anyway a quick glance at edit histories suggests most or all of you do your fair share of quality creative edits on other topics.  So no disrespect is felt at all, we just have different POV,  but that doesnt mean Im going to stay silent about the scale of deletionist efforts directed against these IR articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there certainly should be an effort to purge this junk from our midst. It's been sitting around far too long already, and a streamlined process for removing it is in everyone's interest. - Biruitorul Talk 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not in anybody's interest whatsoever to remove valid, referenced and interesting information from an encyclopaedia!!! I concur in the strongest possible terms with FeydHuxtable, there is a concerted effort and our friend Biruitorul seems to be going for the complete annihilation of these articles at every AfD he can get his hands on. HJMitchell    You rang?  21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, no, just applying the GNG and keeping trivia out of our midst, thank you very much. - Biruitorul Talk 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're labelling as trivia is important information about relations between pairs of countries. That aside, some are utter bollocks, I'll give you that, but some are worth saving and you're showing no regard whatsoever for the articles that could be developed into something meaningful and other editors are getting swept along with it. I couldn't agree more that the worst of them should be consigned to the dustbin, though I think it speaks volumes that my invitation to help on Argentina–Pakistan relations was ignored. HJMitchell   You rang?  17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If, at Argentina-Pakistan, I'd simply said "delete, not notable", then you'd have a point. But I actually reviewed everything quite carefully, as my comments showed. That we reached different conclusions is true, but I can't be accused of recklessness. - Biruitorul Talk 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one's accusing you of recklessness Biruitorul – relentlessness maybe :-).  You're always careful to remain polite and to base your arguments on policy; thats what makes you so dangerous to this topic. That and the fact its not just yourself, you seem to have assemble an elite demolition crew to aid you in purging this entire class of articles.   I think Im going to go on your talk page and get on my cyber knees begging you to reconsider the value of this topic, Im not sure what else I can do to help save this obviously important series of articles as too few seem to be willing to argue the opposite corner against you and your crew.FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no cabal. And for the last time: yes, many of these are notable, but many are not, for lack of significant independent coverage. We can't get around WP:N. - Biruitorul Talk 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, since you have quoted me earlier on this talk page as one of Biruitorul's "allies" I feel that I may be part of your perceived "elite demolition crew". So perhaps it helps to reduce tensions if I explain exactly what motivates me to "reduc[e] the number of X–Y relations articles dramatically". First, I am not sure how many of these there actually are; I just look at those that make it to AfD or central noticeboards. If there are thousands of high-quality articles of this kind that never get into my focus because they are not being proposed for deletion, then I take back the word "dramatically". Of course the matter got my attention due to the mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles (I don't know who exactly was responsible for that and if it has stopped now), and the disruptive attempts to save them (by Hilary T and others). Here are some principles that I expect we don't agree about, and that are significant for the way I see these articles. Sorry it's so long; I don't have the time to make it shorter.
 * While Wikipedia tries to become the sum of all human knowledge, it also needs to ensure that all its articles are interesting to a sufficiently large number of editors and readers. WP:N isn't just about people not writing about their pets. It also makes sure that articles such as Eye colour of Barack Obama are created only if 1) notability of the topic is established by reliable sources, or 2) it becomes necessary per WP:Summary style. Otherwise we would have no end of POV forks, and it would be almost impossible for editors interested in a topic to monitor the quality of all our articles on it.
 * Articles combining two or more topics are generally a bad idea, even if those topics are very relevant and have their own articles. Exceptions: * Discussing several topics together rather than in individual articles is good encyclopedic practice (and not done enough in some areas of WP). * When there is too much information about X and Y in the article on X, it certainly makes sense to create a new article on X and Y and only summarise it in the X article (and the Y article). * When the topic "X and Y" itself is so important that it passes WP:N on its own merits.
 * Let me try to illustrate the main reason why it's generally a bad idea: Suppose we have 1000 editors who are interested in widgets and 100 types of widget, each with its own article. Then we can expect that most widget articles be on the watchlists of a reasonable number of editors. Widgets are the most important components of gadgets; in fact they are usually the main selling point. Therefore most manufacturers combine two or more widgets of different types in each of their gadgets. Some of these combinations are highly effective and quite common; others are existent but more accidental; and some are outright weird. There will be a 100 or so sets of two or more widget types that pass WP:N. No problem if these are included. But if we create the 5,000 articles for all widget pairings, we get into trouble. For most there is simply not enough information to make a good article. At least half of these pairings will only be on the watchlists of those few editors who are sufficiently obsessed about widgets to watchlist all pairings. Vandalism or other problematic changes to such articles will likely not be noticed. Also most readers will simply not see the information. Rather than reading "X is often combined with A (in a gadgets), B (in b gadgets), C (in c, e or f gadgets), D (d gadgets), E (in e or k gadgets) or F (in f gadgets), sometimes with G or H (most notably in h gadgets), and rarely with I, J or K", they would have to click through many articles to find the information; after hitting a number of boring stubs they would probably give up. And should the fact that widgets of types X, C and F are combined in f gadgets really be discussed in six articles? (Three for the individual widget types, and three for the pairings.) We should really give the full picture at the article on f gadgets, and summarise what's relevant to X, C and F at the X, C and F articles.


 * Importance in the real world (how many people are affected etc.) is not a good measure for encyclopedicity. It is perfectly normal that we already have an article How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?, while squared paper is still a red link. The former is a typical encyclopedia topic; an article on the latter would be nice to have, but the lack of sources suggests that people are not too keen on reading about this, makes it much harder to write such an article, and there are also not enough motivated editors.
 * And then there is the slippery slope argument. See Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky for an example of where X–Y relations may lead us. Now that I have written it, that article looks more convincing to me than those X–Y articles for which I voted "keep" in an AfD. But it's complete bullshit in the technical sense. Note that it also passes many of the criteria analogous to what has been proposed for state relations. I believe it would easily survive an AfD, and I can only hope that nobody moves it into mainspace to make a point. Can you imagine the BLP nightmare if we allowed such articles? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes you are perceived as being an elite member of the crew Hans. In abstract terms your widget comparison seems good.  But in practical terms theres the world of difference.  Due to component orientated design articles about the relationships between widgets would be almost redundent (except as you say to a few widget fanatics), its enough to know the interfaces of each widget then engineers can design a suitable gadget for what ever purpose.    This isnt analogous at all to BR. The logic of events involving people is nothing like the logic of systems.   There's scores of possible uses for articles on particular bilateral relationships – merchants can weight up opportunities for international trade, journalists can put statements from country z about country Y into context,   folk arranging international conferences have the information in a readily digestible form to make decisions for optimal outcomes, etc ect.
 * On vandalism, we'd only need one person with an interest in each nation to have about 200 articles on their watch lists to cover the whole set? I read you article on Helmut & Tucholsky, it was interesting,  I dont really know much about BLP except I've seen some talk about its high profile on a few RfAs,  I guess youre probably right about that.  But again there isn't really a comparison in practical terms with bilateral relations.  I dont really know what more I can do to try to communicate how useful these articles could be.  Should I relate some specific stories about how negotiations have broke down through lack of information? Or dig out some studies on the matter.  I've read quite a bit of literature on IR, and mostly scholars seem to take the importance of actors being cognizant of   information  on relations as a given, and concentrate on more interesting determinants of favourable outcomes, but Im sure something could be found?  Maybe I've said all I should and its just best for me to pray and see if a consensus emerges from the efforts of others?  Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts, Im sorry it hasn't helped us move towards agreement, maybe it will on reflection. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am in the middle on this debate. Some of the stub articles can and should be expanded and saved. I have salvaged a few - but I can't agree with keeping a stub article that gives little real information and no evidence of notability. Some (a few) of the stubs have no verifiable information at all, and a search cannot find any: they should be deleted. Many of them have some minor information, worth preserving in a table within a "Foreign relations of ..." article, but not enough to stand alone. They should be merged and I have been doing just that. I think the "Foreign relations of..." tables are useful in giving an overview, even when a table entry shows that the relations with another country are low-keyed. See an essay at User:Aymatth2/Relations for the approach. It is quite possible that a notable dispute will blow up between two countries, or that an editor who knows more about the relationship between two countries will decide to create an article on the subject. If they can build it on good sources that show notability, no problem at all. But for now, merging seems a better compromise than either keeping or deleting. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean by non-governmental actors?
I look up the word actor in the dictionary and it says "one that takes part in any affair". Rather vague in this case. What does it include specifically?  D r e a m Focus  04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone in one nation trying to protect an animal whose migration would be disrupted by a wall built between the two countries?
 * Notable organizations that try to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling, sex slave trafficking, or other problems from one nation to another?
 * Someone complaining about the land mines used as a permanent border between the two nations?
 * Prominent religious figures or institutions that are trying to bring the two nations together?


 * To elaborate what it means, we'd need to look at specific bilateral relations. Government ministers and ambassadors are obviously not non-governmental. Is there a specific article you have in mind? -- User:Docu 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Project banners
For bilateral relations articles, each article should probably include the banners of the WikiProjects for the two country projects banners in addition to:
 * WikiProject International relations

-- User:Docu

Bilateral relations - sourcing of population numbers
One of the questions generally address in bilateral relations, is how many nationals of one country reside in the other one. Which would be appropriate sources these? The general rule seems to be that census numbers are generally reliable and can be used as such. -- User:Docu (June 15, 2009)


 * A reliable source for the number of residents registered with a consulate can be the number supplied directly by the representation of the country of origin. -- User:Docu (June 17, 2009)

Bilateral relations - sourcing of the date of recognition
We could use the primary source, i.e. a document from the country that recognizes another one to source this, but a generally a reliable one would be that date supplied by the country that was recognized. -- User:Docu (June 17, 2009)

Proposed Renaming of 2008 South Ossetia war
Good day, everyone! I would just like to let everyone know that currently, there is a discussion underway at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war about a renaming of the article from its current name ("2008 South Ossetia war") to "Russia-Georgia war" or "Russian-Georgian war". This discussion seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war!

A similar discussion already occurred about two to three months ago, during which an extraordinarily slim majority of users (the final tally was 24-23, although one user voted for both sides) defeated the proposed renaming. However, the renaming proposal was brought back up, as some individuals feel that a new consensus has appeared, while other users believe that the consensus has not changed since the last polling.

I hope that the input from this project will help get the discussion back on track, so that the improvement of this article, which your project considers to be of Top Importance, will swiftly continue. And personally, I don't really care what we call the war, as long as we consider our readers in the process. Thank you, and happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging lists - request for comment
The debate over how to deal with all the stub "x - y relations" articles led to creation of lists in many of the "Foreign relations of x" articles, and the start of a process to merge the stubs into these lists. Typically, each list entry gives the date when diplomatic relations began, a link to an article on the relations if there is one, and the missions (e.g. embassy, consulate general) serving the relationship: The set of countries included in each "foreign relations of x" list is arbitrary: just the countries for which there is an article or stub on bi-lateral relations. There may be other countries with more significant relations that at least deserve a list entry, if not a complete article. One measure of relationship's significance is whether the countries have resident embassies or consulates general. With many countries there are articles that list "missions of" and "missions in". E.g. List of diplomatic missions of Guyana and List of diplomatic missions in Guyana.

Question: Should the three types of list: "bilateral relations of country x", "list of missions of country x" and "list of missions in country x" be consolidated into one table, giving a more complete view? See Foreign relations of Zimbabwe for a pilot article that takes this approach. Or are there good reasons to keep the three types of list in separate articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments
This doesn't address directly your question, but instead of a table, I think a structure with a series of infoboxes could be helpful, similar to episode lists. -- User:Docu
 * Didn't think of that, probably because I don't have the technical ability to set one up. I like the sortable table format, and would want to stay very open-ended but a template could be useful in generating standardized mark-up for each entry:
 * Something like that? I suppose the question is what would be easiest for the typical editor. Since they are likely to copy an existing entry when starting a new entry, it may be about the same either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that? I suppose the question is what would be easiest for the typical editor. Since they are likely to copy an existing entry when starting a new entry, it may be about the same either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that? I suppose the question is what would be easiest for the typical editor. Since they are likely to copy an existing entry when starting a new entry, it may be about the same either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that? I suppose the question is what would be easiest for the typical editor. Since they are likely to copy an existing entry when starting a new entry, it may be about the same either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that? I suppose the question is what would be easiest for the typical editor. Since they are likely to copy an existing entry when starting a new entry, it may be about the same either way. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Which can render as: -- User:Docu
 * I had thought of something in the lines with:

Proposal #1
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:
 * The adjective forms of the countries are to be used. (Filipino-American relations, not Philippines-United States relations)
 * There are special adjectives that are to be used. Exceptions may be permitted if the name doesn't phonetically sound correct.
 * Anglo- for United Kingdom, Kingdom of Great Britain, or England (depending on the time period the article is concerned with)
 * Sino- for People's Republic of China
 * Indo- for India
 * Franco- for France
 * Russo- for Russia
 * The adjective with the fewer syllables goes first. (Sino-American relations, not American-Sino relations).
 * If both adjectives have the same number of syllables, then they are placed in alphabetical order according to the short official names as listed in List of countries.

Proposal #2
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:


 * The name of the country should be used in order to prevent possible confusion. (Examples: Nigerian vs. Nigerien, Greco vs. Greek, etc.)
 * The countries should be placed in alphabetical order according to the short official names of the countries.
 * An endash should be used between the two article names, according to WP:ENDASH.

Discussion
For a while now, bilateral articles have been using the naming conventions found in proposal #2. As such, I removed the guideline from the WikiProject page because I felt it no longer represented consensus. Since then, two editors have decided to readd the "guideline" so I broke it up into two proposals and have taken it here. People who post here please comment on the possible negative and positives of both proposals, comment on which one you support, and add any other suggestions you have for moving forward with these conventions. Tavix | Talk  00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Until recently, most if not all articles used "proposal 1" and Turkish Flame has been moving batches every so often for the past few months regardless of the numerous warnings he received (not from me). The point is that we have to use "proposal 1" because "proposal 2" is grammatically incorrect. "Greece relations"? It has to be Greek relations and the addition of another country name does not change this rule of our language. Also there have been moves such as seen here where the guideline has been upheld through consensus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I explained above, I would prefer the country name format. Some of the adjective forms suggested (and currently used) are ambiguous and/or plain incorrect when referring to a country. For a person in Scotland it would be correct to refer to the relations between his or her country and, say, Ireland, as "Ireland – United Kingdom relations" (since Scotland is a part of the UK). However, "Anglo-Irish relations" would be incorrect, since (as I said before), Anglo- means something related to England, the English, or the English language. Also, both the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo use the demonym "Congolese". Using the adjective forms would make "Congolese-American relations" (yes, we have both articles) ambiguous and we would need some way to disambiguate the two articles. To Grk1011's point that the country name format is grammatically incorrect: Yes, "Greece relations" would be incorrect, and we should use "Greek relations". However, I don't see how "Greece–Turkey relations" is any less correct than "Dublin–Belfast route", "New York – Sydney flight", "New Zealand – South Africa grand final", or the other examples at WP:ENDASH. Jafeluv (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the "Proposal 2". -- Turkish Flame   ☎  03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we cannot just disregard the rules of our language because someone might not know the adjective form of the country. If you really want to use the noun, I would support "Relations of Greece and Iceland". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I really like that proposal and I feel it would satisfy both parties concerns. Does anyone else have anything against that proposal? Tavix | Talk  14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest "Foreign" in front of it or would that make it too long for some? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever may come of this discussion, I can definitely say that I oppose the proposal of renaming all the articles to archaic titles (Anglo-, Sino-, Indo-, Franco-, Russo-, etc.)  This isn't the 19th Century.  Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is admittedly very minor, but there needs to be a convention set (assuming proposal #2 is maintained) regarding the spaces. Currently, some of the arcticles are placed at XXX-YYY and others are at XXX - YYY. Some articles have redirects in place to work around this issue, but many do not. --DMG413 (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to create a consistent naming scheme on Wikipedia:


 * Title of page: Relations of country A and country B
 * The countries should be placed in alphabetical order according to their short official names as listed in List of sovereign states.


 * Ok, so here is the official compromise proposal, so we just need to decide if we would like to put it into effect. As I said above, I would like to see "Foreign" added before the title to read "Foreign relations of country A and country B, but if everyone would rather not have that, I can get over it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the compromise proposal. Neither of the others works for me: Proposal 1 because of the reasons given by others above; proposal 2 because it becomes ugly when the short name of a state consists of more than one word. (Even more so when people ignore the special clause about spacing in this case.) I would prefer it without "foreign" for brevity, but could live with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just saw that we have articles "Foreign relations of country", so maybe "foreign" would be best for consistency? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the proposal. The word foreign means "from a different country", so by definition the relations between country A and country B would be foreign relations. Therefore I don't think the word "foreign" is necessary in the title. It is, of course, necessary in "Foreign relations of country". One question, though: if consensus is reached on this proposal, it's going to mean that a lot of articles will have to be moved. Who's going to do it? Is there a bot for mass moves like this? Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vigrously Oppose Actually, "Country A"-"Country B" relations works just fine, and I'd rather have that than moving all these over to "Relations of _____"; Besides being unnecessary, there's a reason to prefer the existing method, which is that you type in Australia, you get Australia. Under the proposal, we'd have hundreds of articles that all begin with "R", making it a pain to slog through in the searchbox.  If it ain't broke, don't break it.  Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already broken because Country-Country relations is not proper English as I said above. Also, the search box point you bring up is only half right because there are two countries involved, Australia would not always be first like in the case of say Armenia-Australia relations. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Not proper English"? Oh man, I recognize you now.  You're the guy who was lobbying to exhume terms like Anglo- and Indo- and Franco-.  It's no surprise that your compromise is to propose a new solution, also of your own making.   Look, the main thing to aim for in an article title is a likely search term, not to match one person's opinion about what's "proper".  Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia–Armenia relations would of course exist and redirect to Armenia–Australia relations. So you find the article from the search box either way. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And they can both redirect to the proper wording. I don't really think we have the option to to it country-country relations simply because it is not English. That's like purposely spelling a word wrong because it's easier to spell that way. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing "country country relations". We're discussing "country–country relations". I'm not a native speaker (I had to look up "exhume"), but I don't see anything wrong with the use of an en dash here. Could you explain me why you find "country–country relations" incorrect English and "Dublin–Belfast route", "New York – Sydney flight" and "New Zealand – South Africa grand final" (examples listed as WP:ENDASH) correct? Or are you saying that those are incorrect as well? Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The way it works with the dash, which i just didnt feel like adding to my response originally because I thought you could assume it was there, is that say you have Greece-Armenia relations, by taking out one country you have "Armenia relations" which does not work because Armenia is not an adjective, which was the reason why the guideline was to use the adjective form in the first place. All of the example from the endash make sense if you remove one of the terms, (except for the last one). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the names of the countries rather than adjectives is preferable, thus I support this proposal. -- User:Docu
 * I strongly oppose the Noun-Noun compound scheme. I totally agree with Grk1011: For most country names, it is just plain not English. No native English speaker in natural discourse ever uses a phrase like that. I checked in actual corpora of natural English at some point and confirmed my impression: for many countries it's just not part of the language. I don't care whether we use the Latinate compounds (Franco-, Greco- etc) or the simple adjectives (French-, Greek-), and I honestly can't say what the most natural phrasing for some of the more complex names would be, but one thing I'm absolutely certain: a thing like France–Germany relations is totally unacceptable. I would strongly recommend that we should in general resist the urge to enforce a totally uniform naming scheme across all the simple and the difficult cases. It's just a fact of the English language that not all country names are grammatically of the same class. They must be treated differently, because they are simply different types of words. What works with one may not work with the other. Naturalness and proper idiomatic English in each individual case is much more important than uniformity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the proposal. You might want to add your note to the previous section. -- User:Docu

Proposal #4
under the format "NationA-NationB relations". Please state whether you support or oppose the idea of not changing the titles. Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave the titles the way they are, using alphabetical order to determine which nation to mention in the title first, and separating the names of the two nations with a hyphen.

Support
 * Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
 * First of all, this is the same as proposal two which most people were against in the section above. It is something new; the current guideline for over a year has been to use the adjective form, so there is no "leaving the titles the way they are", many will have to be moved. Also, I can't emphasize enough how its not proper English to use a noun as an adjective. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The "not proper English" argument makes no sense. Just because Grk1011 can't analyse "Canada–Greece relations" grammatically (disclosure: I can't either, but I am not trying very hard) doesn't mean it's improper English. Nevertheless it's not particularly good style, and it looks bad when mixed with "Canada – United States relations" (per MOS). Also in practice a lot of people get it wrong all the time: "Canada–United States relations". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How is India–Russia relations grammatically incorrect English? Are you telling me that these have it wrong? Including the Indian Embassy in Moscow, various media outlets, a Japanese university with a Slavic studies program, President of India, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, all of these authors, and all of these scholars? I can say that I moved all of the Russian articles to their current naming format. The Russian category was the neatest categories after I did the moves, and almost all others have followed. The reason I did these moves is that articles are for readers, and should be disambiguous as possible, and although I don't mind things being referred to as "Russo-", as mentioned above, this is so archaic (19th century) and tends to portray a certain importance over one side of the relationship. Additionally, there is ambiguity with the Anglo-, Russo-, etc; Anglo-Indian relations--is this talking about India-United Kingdom relations, or Anglo-Indian relations? The same with Irish-American relations. etc, etc. To use this archaic naming structure, also begs the question, would one limit it to Anglo-, Franco-, Indo-, Russo-, Sino-? And why not Germano- (Germany), Irano- (Iranian), Australo- (Australian), Greco- (Greece), Italo- (Italy). Who is the judge, jury and executioner on what sounds gramatically correct? And would it be Franco-Italian relations or Italo-French relations? India–Russia relations is grammatically correct English, and given the entire category, it is easy to find articles. Relations of India and Russia is incorrect given the content, as one would expect to see an article there of the relations of India and the relations of Russia. It would need to be Relations between India and Russia; too many keystrokes when India–Russia relations is grammatically correct and has less keystrokes (and obvious redirects are in place). Hence, I am in favour of current naming structures as in Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. --Russavia Dialogue 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So that would make you a support vote no? If you read carefully, they will be arranged alphabetically. It is incorrect English because you can't have "Russia relations" noun noun doesn't work. It would have to be Russian relations. Adding another country and dash preceding this does not change it. Also, with what authority are you renaming these articles? The naming guideline on the project page clearly states to use the adjective form. I personally would like proposal one, but not Anglo- etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some example of "proposal 4" used in other ways: I am a Greece-United States person. My parents drive Japan cars. I've been to many Greece parades in Boston. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * India–Russia relations obviously does work, because it's used by government, media and scholars. Are you right? And they are all wrong? Or how about Australia–Russia relations, is the University of Melbourne not teaching their students correct English? Or perhaps NATO-Russia relations should be moved, and NATO and Russia advised that they are using incorrect English. But what to move it to? NATO-Russian relations? That doesn't work, how about NATOlese-Russian relations? OK that's being facetious. But we best advise the Japanse MFA that they are incorrect, as Japan-Russia relations just is not correct. Best advise Reuters whilst we are it. And then we can move on to the Chinese - both the Chinese Foreign Minister and Xinhua are wrong, as is an organisation funded by George Soros. And I guess that Forbes should go back to school - they might be good at money matters, not on grammar. As to whose authority, you fail to see that these are only guidelines, and WP:IAR trumps any guideline that does not seem to have ever been written as a result of any consensus, and as one can clearly see there is no consensus now, and if there was earlier, consensus can change. Discussion needs to reach a wider audience than this wikiproject, because there is really no consensus for anything, and I can say now that any Russian article moves would be contested at this stage. --Russavia Dialogue 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly a bit surprised to see "India-Russia relations" is such widespread use, but then again, that only confirms my impression that these things are subject to heavily idiosyncratic stylistic preferences in English, and that all country names simply can't be treated according to the same scheme. So people out there are using "India-Russia", but still, nobody uses "France-Germany" (if you google for it, "French-German" beats "France-Germany" by a huge factor, and of the remaining noun-noun instances most are either from non-native speakers, or not part of natural syntactic text (i.e. not embedded in actual sentences). Similar for "Russia-Poland" and other combinations. For most of the grammatically simple country names, the adjectival phrasing beats the nominal one in idiomaticity by such a huge margin as to make the latter virtually non-existent; and hence: ungrammatical. (Yes, anything that isn't naturally used by native speakers is, by definition, ungrammatical.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations - sourcing of treaties
Treaties between the two countries are generally an important element to mention in the articles about bilateral relations. Frequently a listing and sometimes the original treaty text is available from embassies' and ministries of foreign affairs' websites. We discussed this type of sourcing in a previous discussion. They provide an acceptable reference for the existence of such treaties. Sometimes, more detailed sources are available, i.e. a secondary source indicating when the treaty was signed, ratified and since when it was valid. This is generally through the government entity in charge of publishing legislation for each country. Where treaties are available online, this can simplify sourcing. If there is need to create separate articles on specific treaties, additional articles providing a discussion of the treaties should be added. -- User:Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations - sourcing of state visits
Details of state visits seem a popular element for bilateral articles. Usual sources for such could be media/press reports and accounts from the governments themselves. Sometimes photographs of such visits are available to be hosted on commons and could be used to illustrate articles. -- User:Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations - redirects
When bilateral relations are dealt in the foreign relations' article of one or the other country, generally a redirect from the usual article title formats for bilateral relations to this table seems helpful. If both countries foreign relations article deal with it, at least two redirects should be made, one to each. Generally the name of the country that is mentioned first would be the target article. -- User:Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Consulate General" or "Consulate-General"?
Feel free to reroute me if there's a better place to bring this up. Which is our standard term, "Consulate-General" with a hyphen or "Consulate General" without a hyphen? I'm seeing both in articles, often even mixed in the same article, and I'm not sure which fix is the right one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No ideas? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Fraid not. But I would also like to know. Is there a MOS of terminology for this project? RashersTierney (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google search on "Consulate-General" shows that most countries omit the hyphen in the names of their missions. The MOS:Follow the sources principle implies we should omit it too. As a broader principle, excessive punctuation, where practical, should be avoided; although there are - of course - exceptions. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

FAR of George F. Kennan
nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Otumba (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

International migration
Is there a sub-group within this project that deals specifically with the international 'management' of emigration/immigration encompassing IATA, International Labour Organisation, International Organization for Migration, UNHCR etc.? RashersTierney (talk) 10:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson GAR notification
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Bilateral relations article name
What should we title bileteral relations articles? Fuller discussion on talk page. Dpmuk (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting a request for comment to try and bottom this out once and for all. At the moment we have page moves being made unilaterly (normally from the adjective form to the noun form) despite there normally being no consensus when (rarely) such moves are brought up at requested moves. I have noticed a lot of these moves but as they don't affect one article it's hard to spot the problem, hence this RfC. Previous discussion here has not reached consensus but there was still a section on the project page suggesting the noun form (I've now removed it) and many editors seem to have been using this as justification despite there being no consensus (possibly not realising that there was none). I suggest that we don't discusses dashes and the like as there are already policies on these issues. As far as I can see there are three options: To me the last is the obvious default choice if no consensus is reached for either of the first two. Whichever option is reached I suggest adding it to the project page. This includes the last option so that at least people know there's no consensus and so hopefully won't use a non-existant 'consensus' as justification for moves. If the last option is the result of this discussion I'd also suggested that no pages were moved from their current title without a requested moves discussion, working on the principal that there are likely to be supporters of both titles and so a discussion is the only way forward. Dpmuk (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) All articles use the noun form (for example Germany - Italy relations)
 * 2) All articles use the adjective form (for example German - Italian relations).
 * If this option is chosen we will probably need a further debate (once this one is finished) about what to do when no sensible adjective form exists (e.g. Trinidad and Tobago)
 * 1) Each article is treated individually

Comments

 * Personally I'm in favour of option 2 as in my opinion it's the more normal spoken form. Dpmuk (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - the vast majority of the articles and subcategories in Category:Bilateral relations have the form 'Boo-Foo relations' (where Boo and Foo are in alphabetical order). The noun-noun formulation always works whereas the Booian-Fooian option doesn't always work (eg for countries with compound names such as Trinidad and Tobago, Bosnia Herzegovina, of which there are many). (Another option would be 'Relations between Boo and Foo'.) Occuli (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Option 1, essentially for the reasons stated by Occuli—the noun–noun form will always work. Option 2 would require some rejiggering for what to do with Trinidad and Tobago and others ("Trinidadian and Tobagonian" isn't going to cut it.) Option 3 would be my least preferred choice—I would prefer that they at least be somewhat consistent across articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Option 2/3: the majority of country names where simple adjectival forms are available must use the adjectival forms, because it is the only grammatically idiomatic, natural form in English: it's "German–Polish relations", just as it's the "Polish border", not the "Poland border"; "Greek–Turkish friendship", not "Greece–Turkey friendship", the "French prime minister", not the "France prime minister", etc. That's how English works, and therefore the only option compatible with WP:NAME, which demands that articles be named with the most common and most easily recognisable expression. In Google searches, with typical combinations you get counts like "German–Japanese relations" 15,500 ghits vs. "Germany–Japan relations" 26 ghits (the latter including the Wikipedia article, and most of the rest being from non-native writers of English or not in running text). – Of course, there are some country name pairs where this doesn't work, because they don't have easily available adjective forms. Those must be treated separately, but we mustn't impose an artificial, un-idiomatic pattern on the large bulk of others just for the sake of uniformity with the few. We can't invent uniformity where the English language itself is not uniform. Country names are not a syntactically homogeneous class in English, that's just a grammatical fact; no single uniform naming scheme could possibly ever fit them all. The present status quo where the noun–noun forms are predominating, is just the result of a campaign by a few individuals who have been systematically moving everything there. Among those articles that were created individually by people who actually cared about what they wrote (i.e. not the huge numbers of mechanically created stubs of the last few months), the huge majority was originally created under the natural adjectival forms. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Prefer option 2 (as the norm) -- Relations is a noun. Accordingly the qualifier should be an adjective.  In a few cases, forming an adjective presents a problem, so that the use of the noun as if it were an adjective is acceptable.  The only alternative would be the "Bilateral relations of Germany and Japan" (etc).  There will be exceptions: Myanmar (if we are not using Burma) lacks an obvious adjective.  An adjectival form of Trinidad and Tobago sounds as if it is two countries (rather than one comprosing two islands).  However, generally, we should use adjectives whenever possible.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Evidence
Some Google data. Please note that among the (few) noun–noun attestations, many are not actually in running text (but in headings, or in incidental collocations), and of the rest, a large number in each case appears to come from non-native writers.

--Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The phrase for France-Italy is "Franco-Italian relations" (16,000 google hits, or 438 if one takes the above advice about the last google page, including omitted items). Then there are Sino-Soviet, Anglo-American (eg BBC, 2002), and a host of other one-offs. I don't think this is helpful to (say) a Chinese person with limited English looking for an article about relations between the US and say India. Indo-American? (see eg Times of India.) Occuli (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no strong opinion about which of "Franco-" or "French–" is preferable. But please stop spreading red herrings. I am explicitly not talking about US–, American– or whatever. My whole point is that each case must be judged on its own linguistic merits, so please don't come with arguments of the type "we can't do this in case A, because it wouldn't work in case B". Obviously, the US is among those linguistically special cases. Also, the technicalities of how to look for an article are beside the point – that's what we have redirects for; obviously all conceivable versions could and should exist as redirects. Also, we don't write for "Chinese persons with limited English". For them we have the Simple English Wikipedia. On this Wikipedia, we do not dumb down the language for the sake of non-native speakers. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Well it's been two weeks since the last comment above so it seems unlikely we'll get any more comments. It seems clear to me that there is no consensus therefore I propose adding the following to the project page:


 * "Following community discusion neither the noun (e.g. Germany-Italy relations) or the adjective form (e.g. German-Italian relations) is prefered."

Dpmuk (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to close this as there's been no discussion for some time. I'm going to boldly put the text mentioned above on the project page as it seems a fair summary of the discussion. If anyone who has commented above disagrees with my closure please feel free to revert as I realise I'm not neutral on this issue. Dpmuk (talk) 10:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

New article idea
Should there be an article regarding the case of Christopher Savoie? It has already been covered on CNN, CBS and NY Daily News. Thus meeting WP:NN, furthermore it relates to the article International parental abduction in Japan, which should fall within the scope of this wikiproject. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theory promotion at Human rights
A number of Iranian editors are attempting to add poorly sourced or unsourced claims to Human rights concerning a 6th century BC artifact, the Cyrus cylinder. They claim that it is supposedly the world's first charter of human rights, and that the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great effectively originated the concept of human rights. (To summarize, this is a fringe theory promoted by the late Shah of Iran in the 1970s as part of his regime's propaganda and has subsequently been promoted by Iranian ultranationalists, particularly in the pro-Shah diaspora. Mainstream historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic.) This has previously been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's now being discussed at Talk:Human rights. Human rights is listed as a high-importance article for this WikiProject so some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Bloc
User:Mosedschurte has twice removed the WikiProject Politics banner from the above articles talk page, when the topic obviously falls within the project. Please keep an eye out in case he removes it again. Willy turner (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Formosa Island, Japanese Territory
Relating to an unresponded to discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard an IP editor has added the Republic of China to the Government in exile article. Past consensus has been that the Republic of China is not in exile, as the IP editor has claimed; therefore, without new consensus or references provided, the content was removed from the article. Relevant articles relating to this topic are Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Treaty of Taipei. This is a highly contentious topic, and as such WP:NEU clearly applies, and discussion should attempt to remain civil.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

League for Small and Subject Nationalities, League of Small Nations, etc. ?
I ran across this concept while browsing around, saw no article so tried to dig up some info. I'm a little confused as to how these organisations worked and what the overlap was, and apparently some pretty major figures (WEB DuBois, Rose Standish Nichols, etc) were involved in this process. I'd appreciate any help in digging up info on the subject. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained moves
Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.-- JL 09 q?c 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject International relations to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject International relations/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.  YellowMonkey  ( Southern Stars photo poll )  06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

List of countries
Hi all, It's a pain in the neck sometimes to type in all the countries in the world (e.g. when creating templates), so I created this page: WikiProject International relations/List of countries. I used this in, for instance, Template:Politics of the world, which looks like this:

Tisane (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-periphery_countries GA review
I have put the GA review of Semi-periphery countries on hold as I feel based on a source check that there is a possibility the information as presented could be unreliable. I would like an expert on the subject to check over the article before resuming the review. See Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA2.  SilkTork  *YES! 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)