Jump to content

Talk:British Indian Ocean Territory: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 7: Line 7:
}}{{On this day|date1=2013-11-08|oldid1=580695608}}
}}{{On this day|date1=2013-11-08|oldid1=580695608}}



== not going home? ==
Looks like they're not going home, unless the European court has a say.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7683726.stm]

Also, is there really a need for a separate article on the [[Chagos Islands]]? [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The [[International Court of Justice]] would rule as one of the principle organs of the [[United Nations]].

The [[Chagos Islands]] article refers to the geographic area, whereas the Indian Ocean Territory article refers to the political entity.

Example: The [[Great Britain]] article refers to the Geographic area but the [[United Kingdom]] article refers to the political entity (inc Northern Ireland[ [[User:ChefBear01|ChefBear01]] ([[User talk:ChefBear01|talk]]) 16:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


== How ridiculous is it that the entire first paragraph does not even mention that the “BIOT” is widelly recognised as part of [[Mauritius?]] ==
== How ridiculous is it that the entire first paragraph does not even mention that the “BIOT” is widelly recognised as part of [[Mauritius?]] ==

Revision as of 20:45, 21 September 2023

Template:Vital article


How ridiculous is it that the entire first paragraph does not even mention that the “BIOT” is widelly recognised as part of Mauritius?

The above is on my mind. Are there any others here who find this ridiculous? I’d particularly like to hear from editors who are not nationals of the United Kingdom or Mauritius? Though, obviously, I accept all editors are entitled to chip in. As to the answer to my question: In my view, 100% ridiculous. Pathetic. Frenchmalawi (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent population

Why does the quick facts box say there is one permanent inhabitant? The official government website says that there is no permanent population and I can't find any other source supporting the number of 1. 2001:9E8:A33D:9D00:A59F:3C46:AE08:8BCF (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the permanent population to 0. It must have been a typo or subtle vandalism that occurred months ago. DDMS123 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]