Jump to content

Talk:Lists of country-related topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Azerbaijan is the name of a region in northwestern Iran not the country which has recently decided to call itself like this. The name of that country is Azerbaijan republic. - Mani1 22:47, August 15, 2004 (UTC)

Non-sovereign territories[edit]

User:Huaiwei has been trying to move all non-sovereign territories to the section titled "lists for subnational entities, continents and other regions" [1] [2] [3], not a surprising move for he has always been equating the definitions of country and (sovereign) state in his previous edits to other articles, treating them as synonyms. I would like to request for third-party opinion on how this list should be sorted, and on the definition of country. — Instantnood 10:29, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not making a judgement either way. This list should be a reflection of List of countries. I think that list is glommed up with extra junk, but that's where the discussion should be. SchmuckyTheCat 18:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Informational vs. navigational uses[edit]

Please keep in mind that lists, redirects, disambiguation pages, and categories often have primarily navigational uses: they are there to make it easy for readers to find information. Articles, on the other hand, are primarily informational, and should strive for precision. Such precision is not required, perhaps it would even be counterproductive, in navigational tools. A reader may be looking for information on Lower Elbonia without knowing whether it's a sovereign state, dependent possession, colony, etc. I'm under the impression that the present list exists mainly to aid in navigation, and as such it should be inclusive even if that means sacrificing some precision. There is simply no space here for details, caveats, nit-picking, etc.; all these things can be dealt with in the appropriate articles. There should be many possible ways to find an article on a given topic, including ones arising from common misconceptions, and then those misconceptions can be cleared up in the article itself. So, if in doubt, I'd rather make this list more inclusive. --MarkSweep 01:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. These are lists for what the English word country generally means. It's not a tool to for anybody to illustrate one's point of view over the meaning of this word. — Instantnood 18:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the simple solution to this issue, is to avoid the word "Country", but to use more nuetral terms such as "political entity". "XXX by political entity" is much less contentious than "XXX by country", and it may be the way forward for all related pages/categories in wikipedia.--Huaiwei 05:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how many people would consider it contentious not to equate country with sovereign State. — Instantnood 07:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how many people would consider "country" more politically nuetral than "political entity". --Huaiwei 08:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at the CFD, political entitiy can be everything. — Instantnood 08:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And according to you, a country can be everything too. Are they? If you want to insist a country is everything, then wont a political entity be far better?--Huaiwei 08:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ontario, California, Texas, Bavaria, or Greater London, City of London, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles County are all political entities, but they are not country. — Instantnood 08:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? They are sub-national entities, which is classified under the country category. So are they countries?--Huaiwei 08:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Category:subnational entities was under category:countries. But since I has never been involved in editing these two categories, don't think you have any evidence to say whether I agree or disagree with it. As I've mentioned at CFD, nobody has said ordinary subnational entities are countries. — Instantnood 09:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dont evade the question. Since you prefer the country category, then I am asking you how feasible it is as a category for all political entities, including that for subnational entities. How is this related to whether you have made an edit in those categories or not? Your nomination for CFD means you are already involved in the dispute. And how is this related to whether anyone is calling "ordinary subnational entities are countries", whatever that means? Quit hidding behind robotic lines, and explain yourself. Your evasive attitude is not helping the situation, and is far from reflective of someone serious about dispute resolution.--Huaiwei 09:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... you put words into my mouth, and when I denied them you're saying I'm "evasive" and "hidding behind robotic lines". :-D (In fact I've already spelt out ordinary subnational entities are political entities but not countries [4], and you carried on challenging on it with something not quite relevant [5].) — Instantnood 10:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Haha...so just what words am I putting in your mouth? Kindly state these exact words for us, coz I simply have no idea which one could fit into your mouth? Now lets see. You say "Ontario, California, Texas, Bavaria, or Greater London, City of London, New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles County are all political entities, but they are not country." I suggested moving the "sub-national" category from "countries" to "political entities". You nominated the later for CFD. By this chain of events, do you actually consider them countries or not? Hence my "not quite relevant" question. By your CFD, are you claiming all entities under the "country" category are countries? You have not answered the question, so if that is not being evasive, what is? :) --Huaiwei 10:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You did not suggest to move it, you just moved it. And what I care was that you're creating category:political entities and populated it by moving the children categories and articles which confortably fit into category:country en masse to illustrate a point, I don't pay attention to every single item you have moved. From what I've said anybody can tell I don't agree category:subnational entities being grouped under category:countries. — Instantnood 11:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am so sorry for the wrong words used. But your concerns appear more rooted to your feelings towards me as a wikipedian then to wikipolicies or for the good of wikipedia as a website. Why is the above move considered "illustrating a point", when it was merely an act to put right an NPOV issue? You express reservations over the movement of "children categories and articles which confortably fit into category:country en masse". Can you now claim that all articles in all children categories of category:country fit comfortably in it? Are all enclaves countries? Are all disputed territories countries? Are all subnational entities countries? Are all microstates countries? Are all principalities countries? Conversely, are all the above not political entities? You cannot seem to answer these questions adequately. As I stated in the CFD, I rejected your nomination because you are clearly not nominating based on fact, but doing so because you have personal issues against another wikipedian. By your own statements above, you admit to this fact. Is it appriopriate for the CFD process to be vandalised this way?--Huaiwei 11:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at Wikipedia:requests for arbitration/Yuber/Proposed decision#Categories. While most children categories and articles confortably fit into category:countries, I don't think all fit into it. Category:subnational entities is one, since ordinary subnational entities are not countries. Disruptive behaviour, including disrupting to illustrate a point, is not personal issue at all. — Instantnood 11:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You seem very familiar with the arbcoms involving other members. Anyhow, lets now look at that matter-of-factly. Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. If someone is looking for information on any type of territory, will he be looking at it in "countries", or "political entities", irrespective of whatever political viewpoint he may adopt? Insisting on placing all the above categories in "countries" is like insisting placing Golan Heights in either one of those two categories. You say you "don't think all fit into it." So why do you insist on keeping it when a superior classification option is presented? Why are "ordinary subnational entities" not countries, when according to the definition in Oxford dictionary, they could very well be? And would you mind elaborating on "Disruptive behaviour, including disrupting to illustrate a point, is not personal issue at all", because I catch no head nor tail in what you are trying to say?--Huaiwei 12:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Title move proposal[edit]

In light of the above disputes, I propose changing the title of this page to Lists of topics by political entity. I would think this will permanantly put an end to all related disputes over just what should be listed here.--Huaiwei 08:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this one for a couple of days, couldn't be more blatantly obvious that a ban of these two on this article is required as well. --Wgfinley 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the value of these lists?[edit]

I just redirected List of Morocco-related topics to Category:Morocco. I undid it because I found this page, but frankly I'd be tempted to just run around and AfD the lot. Why do we need these articles? Surely having categories for the countries is a great way to approach this issue... What value are the lists adding here that the categories aren't? -- cmh 02:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just a matter of preference. Some people prefer to navigate by categories and some prefer to navigate by links. NorthernThunder 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Discussion[edit]

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 13:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of incompleteness[edit]

Shouldnt all these lists have the "dynamic list" tag on them? i know some of them are very sketchy, and without this tag, wikipedia users may not realize how much more there is. im personally opposed to these lists, preferring to use the category system, which this duplicates poorly. but in any case, even with monumental effort, these lists will always be incomplete. example: Brazilian Press is an American based newspaper covering Brazil. so its a US company, but also Brazil related. its like the question for a bookseller: if you specialize in science fiction, do you carry only science fiction novels and short story collections, or every product that a typical science fiction fan might like to purchase? lots of work to be inclusive. so, does anyone know why these lists dont seem to have this tag on them? (i havent checked them all of course) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:Index of Croatia-related articles, I don't see how {{dynamic list}} is even a goal - these indices by and large don't seem to have a sources section. So it looks like they are supposed to be contained in a well-defined scope, similar to how disambiguation pages list only entries that have some pre-existing proof of notability. But why don't we define that scope, then? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]