Talk:List of countries

General discussions

For the inclusion of sovereign states, see talk:list of sovereign states and for the inclusion of dependent territories the talk:list of dependent territories. We do not need a double discussion. So if a country is deleted from on of the other lists, this list follows.

This list includes the native names. I plan to delete these, since these are included in the list of sovereign states. Before I do that, I wait three days (1st of may I will start), to hear arguments. Electionworld 22:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Deletion completed. Electionworld 17:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

There are some mistakes on the list on which countries are considered federal. At first glance, Germany, the USA and Russia don't appear as federal states, while Spain does. I've always thought of Germany, the USA and Russia as the most obvious examples of federal states, and although Spain's autonomic system is virtually federal, it isn't officially so. I'm sure there must be other mistakes if even the USA isn't marked as federal, so it might come in handy if someone with a better knowledge of geography than me went through the list and made sure the rest are OK. However, this has brought up another question. Should we mark federal states as such? Is there a real reason for it? Because me might just as well mark democratic countries as democracies, and dictatorships as such. For the time being, I'm going to fix Spain, Germany, the USA and Russia.--Daniel Medina 19:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great job!

I was one of the early advocates for moving away from a list purely of sovereign states to a more inclusive list. At the time I was a bit nervous that it would be difficult to draw the line, and we'd end up with a list consisting mainly of military bases. But my unspoken fears were unfounded. The line is drawn well, and it's gained widespread acceptance. The list is very authoritative, probably the most NPOV and authoritative list on the internet. I really like the annex idea. Those responsible deserve a pat on the back! Ben Arnold 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The definition by which “country” is determined on this page is amazingly ridiculous. For the sake of consistency, shouldn’t every entity on the planet that currently has a secessionist movement be listed as a country? Therefore, for example, the seven individuals in Patterson, New Jersey who promote the secession of New Jersey from the United States should be listed as a “country.” The three people in Bonn who want their favorite drinking establishment to be recognized as a “country” so German alcohol tax can be avoided… shouldn’t they be recognized as a “country”?

This page is a politically correct attempt to placate and appease any and all. Don’t stop now 1 Increase the list by widening the net!

Non-contiguous parts of countries

Does anyone know why most international lists of countries list overseas departments of France as seperate entities, but don't list Alaska and Hawaii?

Is there some kind of rule of thumb that federal countries can be non-contiguous, whereas non-contiguous parts of unitary states are regarded as separate territories?

Ben Arnold 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it depends on the legal status of the entities. In some cases, the non-contiguous parts of non-federal states like Azores and Madeira Islands of Portugal and Canary Islands of Spain are not regarded as separate entities due to their sharing same legal status with other subnational units in those countries. Whereas in other cases the contiguous parts of non-federal states (like Hong Kong and Macau of the People's Republic of China) which have their own legal systems are listed separately. Concerning the French overseas departments, it is a bit ambiguous as some treat them as with same legal status as metropolitan departments while others don't. You may refer to the discussion below for details. -- DD Ting 10 November 2005, 09:45 (UTC)

list per continent

Does something like this already exsists?(Anon)

Yes, the list of countries by continent. Ben Arnold 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Countries with additional parameters

I think that it would be very useful to set-up a country listing, downloadable in some format (CVS, XML, Excel), that holds some additional information for each country, such as:

  - international short name - English (e.g. Germany)
  - international long name - English (e.g. Federal Republic of Germany)
  - international short name - French (e.g. Allemagne)
  - international long name - French (e.g. Républic Fédérale de l'Allemagne)
  - international name - .... other languages (--> perhaps the six official UN languages; thus Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic) 
  - local short name (e.g. Deutschland)
  - local long name (e.g. Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
  - official languages (e.g. German; for Switzerland: German, French, Italian) 
  - Capital (e.g. Berlin) (local and international form)
  - eventually coordinates  for drawing a rectangle that encompasses the country

Some of the information exists. But not all. With the help of all these Wikipedia users around the world it should be fairly easy to set-up such a list. There are some UN lists too (UN Statistical Divison, UN Cartographic Section, UNTERM), but none of them includes all proposed fields. A public "database" of this information would really be a great thing. Ok, there are some political sensitive issues to be aware of, but the list below shows that it is nevertheless possible to come up with something (fairly) complete. Luftikus143 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

We should probably simply wait for meta:Wikidata for stuff like this. Oh, am I looking forward to it... ^_^ —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about entities

Czechia/Czech Republic

The name "Czechia" was announced by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993 for use as the short form title of the Czech Republic. While it has not been so caught on in English usage, as it has already been stated in para 2 of the list that "The names are given in English and include both the short official names (e.g. Afghanistan) and the (longer) official name (e.g. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan). The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute.", no matter you like it or not, it's still much appropriate to put "Czechia" on the list as the official short form title of Czech Republic, just like Belarus vis-á-vis Byelorussia and Côte d'Ivoire vis-á-vis Ivory Coast. DD Ting 03:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Let's promote the use of "Czechia" as a respect to the country and its people. DD Ting 03:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

None of the official sites of the Czech government, Czech president and the Czech parliament, not even the Czech Ministry of foreign affairs uses Czechia, so it shouldn't be used as the short official name, I placed Czechia between brackets. Electionworld 08:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)s

French overseas departments and collectivities

Generally good list but I don't support the inclusion of the french DOMs. They are equal in status to the Metropolitan departments and as much a part of France as Hawaii is of the USA or Tasmania of Australia, and neither of those are on this list. - Randwicked 09:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC). I excluded the French departments from the future list above Electionworld 11:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About French listed territories : France is divided into "collectivité territoriales", among them 4 "collectivités d'outre-mer" (overseas collectivities) (article #74 of French constitution) : French Polynesia, Mayotte, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna. Even if French Polynesia's own statutory law calls it a "pays d'outre-mer" (overseas country), it also refers to its constitutionnaly statute of overseas collectivity. So I think French Polynesia should be included into French overseas collectivities, not into French overseas countries. Note that the other overseas collectivities' statutory laws give each a particular name : Mayotte is a "collectivité départementale" (departemental collectivity), Saint Pierre and Miquelon a "collectivité territoriale" (territorial collectivity) and Wallis and Futuna a "territoire d'outre mer" (overseas territory). New Caledonia is not a "collectivité territoriale". It's unique statute has no name, that's why it is said to be sui generis. It's own laws are called "lois de pays" (country laws), so it could be called a "pays" (country). But collectivity, even sui generis, is not appropriate.

Netherlands

Technically the Netherlands is the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands ≠ the Kingdom of the Netherlands. — Instantnood 19:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

see changes. Electionworld 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. — Instantnood 12:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Sealand

To the best of my knowledge and from what I learned from the discussion in the List of sovereign states, I was given the impression that Sealand meets all criteria as a state as like other de facto independent states (e.g. Abkhazia). It has defined territory (550 sq m) and even territial waters (12nm). It has a functional government. It has a running economy (HavenCo) and the staff working there and the Bate's family constitute permanent population of the state. It is out of the jurisdiction of any other sovereign states (e.g. UK). While it's an artifical island, the state was established long before the promulgation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 which thus has no legal effect on it. When the principality declared in 1967, it was outside the UK's territorial waters (3nm, not 12nm which was declared by the UK government in later years). While no sovereign states have ever established diplomatic relations with Sealand, the 1978 incident had indeed constituted de facto recognition of Sealand by Germany. So Sealand has already met the criteria of a state. As it is not recognized by any sovereign states in the world, it is appropriate to classify Sealand as de facto independent state. DD Ting 04:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

This discussion we had earlier on Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries. There was even a poll. The discussion was clear and according to that result I deleted Sealand again. Electionworld 08:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan/Republic of China

And by the way "Taiwan" is a conventional rather than official short form. — Instantnood 15:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Jiang deleted the sentence de facto sovereign state at Taiwan. Could he please argue why Taiwan should not considered to be a de facto sovereign state. Electionworld 11:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

De facto sovereign states receive no recognition. the ROC receives recognition from 25 states. Where do we draw the line? Since the original prompt set the number of de facto states at 6, i stated "2 or fewer" to include Northern Cyprus since it is a puppet state.--Jiang 11:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Should Taiwan have a pointer at China? SchmuckyTheCat 09:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not? :-) — Instantnood 09:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that nowadays the ROC government is commonly regarded as Taiwan authorities instead of the government of China. However, legally speaking the ROC government has never formally denounced its claim over its former territories including Mainland China and Outer Mongolia. It's also worth noting that the ROC government has been in existence (without interruption) since 1912 when it was established in Nanjing, China, and among the states which still maintain diplomatic relations with ROC, some (e.g. Honduras, Paraguay) had established such relationship before the ROC government moved to Taiwan in 1949. For Holy See, it treats its diplomatic relation with ROC as with "China" as noted from its official website. So it is not factually wrong to put "China (ROC)" side-by-side with "China (PRC)" on the list. But to be accustomed to conventional wisdom, I think it's better maintaining status quo (i.e. "Taiwan (ROC") with a note at "China (PRC)" (i.e. "(see also Taiwan (ROC))"). DD Ting 02:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Let's be consequent. Generally in Wikipedia the entries regarding the (politics of etc. the ) state are named Republic of China etc.. Taiwan is used for the island or a redirect follows. Electionworld 08:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The present Chen Shui-bian's administration in ROC announced recently that all ROC government websites (e.g. President's Office and Government Information Office) would add '(Taiwan)' after the official titile 'Reoublic of China' in order to distinguish ROC from PRC. So to certain extent 'Taiwan' has been the official abbreviation of ROC, at least under the present term of government. DD Ting 01:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Further Taiwan/ROC

Yesterday I severely shortened the essay after the Taiwan entry. This is a simple list and we should avoid having huge paragraph long essays about political status on any country/territory here. We need one link here to the issue with the PRC here, not a paragraph summary of all PRC/ROC territorial disputes. Also, I thought we agreed to not have a second "China" line under C, instead a see also after the PRC entry. Nobody is going to look for Taiwan (as a country) under China. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not for you or I to decide if there is anybody looking for Taiwan under section C. The ROC establishes diplomatic relations with other countries as China (e.g. Vatican [1], [2]). The previous way of presenting - "(see also [[#T|Taiwan (ROC)]])" on the line of the PRC entry [3] - is far from satisfactory, for the ROC is not, and has never part of the PRC. It should be, IMHO, separately listed. — Instantnood 18:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• This list is not a dab page. There is no Burma, no Kampuchea, etc. One country, one entry. You're really reaching. Your link is neither here nor there. In diplomatic writings between ambassadors (not funeral notices), the Vatican switches between the full name ROC or uses Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 20:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  It's because they are using the full name of every country. I don't regard a pointer a second entry of the same country. The pointer for the ROC should never go behind the PRC, as long as ROC is not, and has never been part of it. — Instantnood 21:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

  Deleting it from the letter C should be acceptable then. Taiwan is not China and no longer claims to be China, they just have China in their name as a historical relic. SchmuckyTheCat 21:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  What about a line under the PRC entry like " *<i>See [[#T|below]] for the Republic of China (ROC)</i> ", making it less like an entry? — Instantnood 07:00, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

  Seems to me a good compromise. So I will make this change. Electionworld 09:50, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that this is a good compromise that fulfils the prinicle of neutrality. The best way to avoid conflict between readers from the PRC and the readers from the ROC is to abide by the more neutral point of view in the "1992 consensus" (九二共識) agreed by the officials from the two side of the Taiwan Strait. Otherwise, the readers from either side of the Strait may feel offended. (Say, the pan-blue folks don't like to use the term "China" to refer to the PRC, and think that "China" can also be referred to the ROC. Meanwhile, the pan-red folks may not like stating "China" and "Taiwan" as two nations.) The most important conclusion in the 1992 consensus is the principle of "一個中國，各自表述" or "一中各表". That is, there is only one "China" in the world, but is now under two regimes as a result of the civil war. Both the PRC and ROC should recognize their own regime as "China", while respecting the peaceful coexistence of one another. The best way to fulfill this more neutral point of view is to put both "China, People's Republic of" and "China, Republic of" in "C", and give a redirection from "Taiwan" to "China, Republic of" in "T." - Alanmak 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

By doing so we'll effectively be disregarding the actual reality that the ROC is, at most time, referred to as Taiwan. That's the name most people know about it. While I believe many articles on the ROC should be titled " in/of the Republic of China ", I agree with the opinion that most readers would look for it by its common name, and therefore it should be listed under #T. — Instantnood 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The "1992 consensus" (九二共識) is only one interpretation of the current political status involving the PRC and the ROC. Many people (e.g. pan-green folks) do not agree to it. Who is to say this is the "most neutral" point of view? (NPOV means an appropriate representation of all points of view, not the representation of only the "most neutral" point of view, which really, does not exist.) As the country names "China" and "Taiwan" are the most commonly understandable and used short names (not official names) of the PRC and the ROC, I do not see a problem using them in pages like this one. Chanheigeorge 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tokelau

The list does not contain Tokelau. It was there in the older version. -- ChongDae

OK

Vatican City/Holy See

Can anyone advise whether the extra-territorial properties as agreed in the 1929 Lateran Treaty come under the jurisdiction (though not sovereign) of the Holy See or the Vatican City? DD Ting 16:42, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Virgin Islands

The list should be linked to U.S. Virgin Islands instead of Virgin Islands. — Instantnood 19:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

see changes. Electionworld 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. — Instantnood 12:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Can we use the same ordering for both parts of the Virgin Islands. Either list them as British Virgin Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands or as Virgin Islands, British and Virgin Islands, U.S.? The simplest option would be to move British Virgin Islands to Virgin Islands, British. Ben Arnold 00:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam

Should Tamil Eelam be considered a de facto country?

see Annex to the list of countries for entities not included in the List of countries that include "Places under the control of secessionist or guerrilla movements". DD Ting 06:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan

I do not think that Taiwan should be listed together with internationally recognized sovereign states, since Taiwan is more something like a "disputed territory", and not a "internationally recognized sovereign state". Besides this, most countries which have relationships with Taiwan, actually have economic but no diplomatic relationships. If one country trade with Taiwan it does not mean that this country recognize Taiwan as a state. The China consider that Taiwan is part of China, and many countries recognize this "One China policy". So, the sovereignty of Taiwan is a disputed issue.

For example, here is a Wikipedia article about Taiwan independence. Quote: "Taiwan independence is a political movement whose goal is primarily to create an independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan (out of the lands currently administered by the Republic of China) that is politically, culturally, and geographically separate from China."

So, if their goal is to create a "independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan", than it is quite obvious that Taiwan is not sovereign and independent.

Another example:

• http://members.aol.com/JoJoLewis/Taiwan/Taiwan_index.html

Quote: "The People's Republic of China has blocked Taiwan from having official diplomatic ties with almost every country in the world. If a country wants to do business with China, it must denounce Taiwan and remove it's embassy. The PRC is blocking Taiwan from having a seat in the United Nations, and prevents the Taiwanese from even the right to fly their own flag in the Olympic Games."

"There are several different opinions among the Taiwanese as to what to to with this question. Some feel that Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese and that they should declare themselves as an independent country, completely separate from Mainland China. Others are of the opinion that reunification might be acceptable only if China was a truly democratic society. Still others would like to see Taiwan as part of China at any cost. By charter of the United Nations, the people of Taiwan are entitled to decide for themselves what their final outcome will be."

etc, etc....

More web sites about this issue could be seen here:

• http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=taiwan+independence&btnG=Google+Search -- User:PANONIAN

The country "Taiwan (ROC)" in the List of countries refers to the regime of the Republic of China (ROC), not the island of Taiwan, the so-called Republic of Taiwan proposed by supporters of Taiwan independence or the administrative division of Taiwan Province. The ROC government, formally established in Nanjing, China on 1 January 1912 and moved to Taipei in Dec 1949 after its loss in the Chinese Civil War against the Communist Party of China, currently maintains diplomatic relations with 26 international recognized countries. While it lost the seat of United Nations in 1971 and recoginition of most other states afterwards, in addition to the tendency towards Taiwan independence of its present ruling Democratic Progressive Party, it has never constitutionally renounced its status as the legitimate government of China and its claim over its former territories including Mainland China and Outer Mongolia. Moreover, having regard to the fact that it has a functional government, effective sovereign control over certain portion of territories and population, and in particulr maintaining diplomatic/official relations with a number of states and international organizations, the ROC is regarded as a country under the category of "internationally recognized sovereign states" in this list, similar to the case of Korea. As regards its official short form title, you know that there is a debate among many Wikipedians on the subject as detailed in the above session. It comes to the conclusion of using "Taiwan (ROC)" as its official short form based on the recent announcement of the present ROC administration [4] [5] to add '(Taiwan)' after the official titile 'Reoublic of China' in order to distinguish ROC from the People's Republic of China (PRC). It to certain extent makes 'Taiwan' the de facto official abbreviation of ROC. The above is the rationale behind the inclusion of "Taiwan (ROC)" in the List of countries. DD Ting 07:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Still, a number of books and atlases, which I read, do not list Taiwan or ROC as an "sovereign country", but as an "disputed territory" under the de jure sovereignty of China (People's Republic of China), but de facto independent. So, I think that Taiwan belong in the list together with Abhazia and Northern Cyprus, and not together with 192 undisputed sovereign countries of the World. User:PANONIAN

Here is what I mean:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan

Quote: "The legal question of which legal entity holds de jure sovereignty over Taiwan is a controversial issue. Various legal claims have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC), and supporters of Taiwan independence over this question, with a variety of arguments advanced by all sides."

User:PANONIAN

What specific criteria are we to use in defining "de facto" (versus "de jure") independent states? Should we place both North Korea and South Korea under the list too since each claims sovereignty over the other? Or how about North Korea only since it has less diplomatic recognition than South Korea? How about Israel, which is not recognized as a legitimate state by almost all Islamic countries?

for the specific criteria, the article states "all recognized by fewer than two other states" in defining the "unrecognized"/"de facto independent" states. It would be "all recognized by no states" excluding Northern Cyprus, which is a puppet state only recognized by Turkey. I would put Taiwan ROC in a different class, given its recognition by several states and participation in governmental organizations. --Jiang 03:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, I agree with this change. Taiwan status is a specific question, and its sovereignty status has not been fully solved yet. I think that proper criteria to define a fully sovereign state would be that this state is recognized by most other countries (not only few or several). User:PANONIAN

---

VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template?

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not. It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment. However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.

Thus, the following question is put to a vote:

Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia country infobox/template:

(1) Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;

(2) Rank of country’s HDI;

(3) Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?

YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here

Thanks!

E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Are the flags necessary?

Given the current problems Wikipedia is having with images, are the large number of images of this page appropriate? Alan Pascoe 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I would get rid of the flags as it takes forever to get the page to load even with a cable modem. There should be a limit to the number of graphics on any page on wikipedia - maybe 15 total. Shocktm 22:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, too many images should not be any problem with the new server any longer. Besides, a strict not-more-than-15-rule would completely destroy image gallery pages... File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• I like the flags, they make the page look nice, and add another layer of information to an already excellent article. Keep (if we're voting!) Jdcooper 16:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree the flags are useful and necessary. This list also served as a list of flags. As for the problem of internet connection, what about a separate list with all the text but exclude all graphics? Does the wiki software allow user to set their preference not to display all images? — Instantnood 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there should no longer be any problem as it didn't take long time to open the list in recent days after the improvement work by Wikipedia. DD Ting 15:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a good thing that although the graphics cannot be loaded promptly, it does not affect loading of text. — Instantnood 15:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

I've visited the website of the NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs which mentions that people who wish to travel to NKR need to apply visa at the NKR Permanent Mission in Armenia. Does anyone know whether this Mission is diplomatically recognized by Armenia? DD Ting 14:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

health in different countries

I'd like to ask why are public health issues not discussed under countries? (I didn’t check all countries but looked at a few). I’d like to read for example what are the main public health problems in the countries that I’m interested in. Is there a specific reason for this? Or would it be possible for anyone interested to simply start writing about health under different countries? Liisa Mari 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

RvEdit, the footnotes are unnecessary as all of the links can be found in the respective pages of the unrecogized countries. -- 202.128.225.52 (talk · contribs)

While I'm aware all the links or information described in them can be found in all the respective articles, Wikipedia policy (and academic norm.) is such that all the information in any individual article need to be cited with external sources. Basically, one need to be able to verify an article with only access to that article and its sources / references without access to any other Wikipedia article. Other WP article exist to provide more details on a subject, not reference.

And I'm trying to get this list through FLC. Don't help if a reviewer request external sources and it's not there when he look at it, after I said I put it in already. ;-) -- KTC 13:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

European Union

Do you think we should add the EU as a possible future nation or something like that? Cameron Nedland 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Until they become the Federated States of Europe they don't belong here. - Randwicked Alex B 11:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

OK fair enough, just thought I would throw it out.

Cameron Nedland 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So which ones get the SuperBowl?

I thought they were joking when they said SuperBowl XL was being broadcast in 234 countries and territories, but I guess they missed a few... Good to know there's something irrelevant playing in Djibouti Bobak 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---

WikiWeakness

• WikiWeakness #4788 - whoever screams the loudest gets to dictate what is presented on any given WikiPage

What has created the belief among many English speakers that Ivory Coast is no longer the accepted name and now we are required to use the French translation Côte d'Ivoire ? There are scores of nations on this list that have a different spelling or different name in the local language, yet in English we opt to use our own name when referring to that place. What is it about the Ivory Coast that is different from other nations?

We are allowed to use the name Albania when the locals use “Shqipërisë.” We are allowed to use the name Bhutan while the locals use “Druk Yul.” We are allowed to use Cambodia when we speak English, but the local people use “Srok Khmae.” We use Greece in English, but the Greeks say, “Ellinikí Dhimokratía.” Why the lemmingesque tendency to fall in to lock-step obedience with the herd? What is wrong with using the English name on the English Wikipage?

If, “Côte d'Ivoire,” is correct, then why isn’t French Polynesia listed as, “Polynésie française,” why isn’t Saint-Pierre and Miquelon listed as, “Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon,” why isn’t The Territory of Wallis and Futuna Islands listed as, “Territoire des îles Wallis et Futuna.”

The lack of consistency is glaring.

202.79.62.12 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} ¦ Reisio 05:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The swelling tide of WikiWeaknesses is much, much more than I am interested in confronting. Typically on a page such as this, where it is obvious many people have invested much time; there emerge bands of WikiThugs who make sure their point of view is presented and remains unchallenged and unaltered. Too frequently WikiThugs lurk in the shadows and pounce when changes are suggested or made. For that reason it is ridiculous to consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia. It is more like a chalkboard bolted to the back of a stall door in a public toilet. Maybe the things scrawled there are factual and relevant, maybe they are erroneous and useless… the problem is that there is no editor taking responsibility to find out.202.79.62.12 06:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Côte d'Ivoire wants to be called Côte d'Ivoire in English as well, and a large number of sources comply. So should we. —Nightstallion (?) 11:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought that Côte d'Ivoire was French (diacritical marks often give it away), and the English translation was Ivory Coast. So now that government has instructed the English speaking world what can and can’t be written/said in English? What would be the reason to comply?

The reason is consensus. Apparently the majority has decided this is fine. ¦ Reisio 04:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is a slippery slope. Several languages follow the instructions of the government Ivory Coast and have dutifully altered the name, such as:

• Korean/ 한국어 / 조선어 – “코트디부아르” [6]

• Japanese/日本語 – “コートジボワール” [7]

• Chinese/中文 – “科特迪瓦”[8]

Interestingly several Wikipages in various languages (Turkish, Tagalog, etc) list the Francophone name but in parentheses state that the name in English is “Ivory Coast.” A quick scan of other languages suggests that the insistence by the government of the Ivory Coast that we all use the French name is being ignored.

The consensus came from where? Was a poll taken on this discussion page? I suggest that, in regards to the English language, caving in to the dictates of a non-English speaking nation’s government is silly. As native speakers this is our language. Looks like the native speakers of the languages below decided to defy the government of the Ivory Coast.

• Afrikaans/Afrikaans – “Ivoorkus” [9]
• Aragonese/ Aragonés – “Costa de Bori” [10]
• Bosnian/Bosanski – “Obala Slonovače” [11]
• Catalan/Català – “Costa d'Ivori” [12]
• Croatian/Hrvatski – “Bjelokosna Obala” [13]
• Czech /Česky – “Pobřeží slonoviny”[14]
• Danish/Dansk – “Elfenbenskysten” [15]
• Dutch/Nederlands – “Ivoorkust” [16]
• Esperanto – “Ebur-Bordo” [17]
• Finnish/Suomi – ”Norsunluurannikko” [18]
• Galician /Galego – “Costa do Marfil”[19]
• German/Deutsch – “Elfenbeinküste” [20]
• German (Alemannic ) /alemannische - “Elfenbeinküste”
• German (Low) /Plattdüütsch – “Elfenbeenküst”[21]
• Greek/ Ελληνικά – “Ακτή του Ελεφαντοστού”
• Hungarian/Magyar – “Elefántcsontpart” [22]
• Icelandic/ĺslenska – “Fílabeinsströndin” [23]
• Indonesian/Bahasa Indonesia – “Pantai Gading” [24]
• Irish/Gaeilge – “An Cósta Eabhair” [25]
• Italian/Italiano – “Costa d'Avorio” [26]
• Lithuanian /Lietuvių - “Dramblio Kaulo Krantas” [27]
• Naura/Ekakairũ Naoero – “Ivory Coast” [28]
• Norwegian(book)/Norsk(bokmå) - “Elfenbenskysten” [29]
• Norwegian (new)/Norsk (nynorsk ) – “Elfenbenskysten” [30]
• Polish/Polski – “Wybrzeże Kości Słoniowej” [31]
• Portugese/Português – “Costa do Marfim” [32]
• Romanian/Română – “Coasta de Fildeş” [33]
• Russian/ русский – “Берега Слоновои Кости”
• Slovak/Slovenčina – "Pobrežie Slonoviny“ [34]
• Slovene/Slovenščina – “Slonokoščena obala” [35]
• Spanish/ español - "Costa de Marfil" [36]
• Swedish/ Svenska – “Elfenbenskusten” [37]
• Turkish/Türkçe – “Fildişi Sahilleri” [38]

So obviously there are great numbers of people on the planet ignoring the dictates of the government of the Ivory Coast. Why should native English speakers obey their commend and substitute a pair of French words for a pair of English words? I fail to understand the logic and certainly do not see consensus.

(Esperanto... couldn't resist including it... )

The other language wikipedias are irrelevant - it only matters how it's done here, and here apparently most people are fine with using the French. If you want to push for it to be called "Ivory Coast" here, though, I suggest you bring it up on its talk page, not this talk page. ¦ Reisio 12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the other Wiki Language pages are quite relevant. The issue is that the government if Ivory Coast has apparently made an announcement to the world that nobody is allowed to name their nation in any language other than French. I don’t speak French and have no intention of investing any time to learn that language, so I have no aim to comply with their laws. Additionally, I do not think the laws of Ivory Coast extend to where I live and they lack extradition treaties with most nations… so I am safe. What native speakers opt to do in each individual language has a clear impact on the universal situation. If only native English speakers were resisting the commandment of the Ivory Coast government, then obviously English speakers would represent an anomaly. However, this is not the case. There is ample evidence of a critical mass of native speakers of various languages ignoring or defying the government of the Ivory Coast and making a decision independent of their orders. Why is this not the place to discuss the issue? This is an English language WikiPage yet on this page the nation is listed in French while other Francophone locations are listed in English. Is the suggestion to take this issue elsewhere based on the desire to simply maintain status quo and avoid rocking the boat at this location? Is Wikepedia not “open?”

The issue is that this page and pages like it generally just use whatever name the corresponding article uses - in this case that means "Côte d'Ivoire" - so if you want pages like this to use "Ivory Coast", you should just go to Talk:Côte d'Ivoire and push for getting that page moved to "Ivory Coast". ¦ Reisio 22:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you the same "Reisio" who, three days prior, suggested “so fix it”? Why the change of heart?

...what change of heart? I'm still telling you the same thing I said before - if you want something changed, get to fixing it yourself. ¦ Reisio 09:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Taliban statelet in N. Pakistan

Some weeks ago news emerged that the Taliban had decided to formalize their military control of the tribal back-country of Pakistan by declaring an "Islamic state" in Waziristan (Google search). I'm curious if that might mean we should accord this area the same status as Abkhazia, Somaliland and co. Thoughts? The Tom 23:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First you need to add that to the Waziristan article. Then we can look at it. --Golbez 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Having read a few newspostings on this, I s'pose it should count as such, yes. Golbez has got a point, though; you should first put the information into the Waziristan article, and then add Waziristan as a de-facto state to relevant lists. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Someone added Yugoslavia to the list. Should this be deleted? Shawnc 00:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There are ONLY 193 countries

This list is simply ridiculous. For example: You CANNOT list China AND Hong Kong as TWO countries because: Hong Kong is a part of China! There are only 193 countries. The only ones who are not members of the United Nations are the Vatican and Taiwan. --Damifb 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Consecuently, I moved the article to List of countries and other territorial entities.--Damifb 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 193 sovereign states. Countries need not be sovereign. Considering this list gained featured status for its methodology, I imagine there are no shortage of people who would disagree with this move. As such, I'm reverting the move. The Tom 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The new title was very inaccurate, because than all provinces and municipalities should be included. There is an explanation why HK and macau are included. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi fellows. Thank you for your concern. I agree with the "municipalities" argument, BUT then we have to come out with other proposal for a title. In international language, and in common language in most of the countries, the sense of the word "country" is moving to be exactly the same that "sovereign state", so it still seems ridiculous to call "Jersey" a country.--Damifb 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Please come up wit a suggestion. But it is not unusual to make a difference between independent and not-independent countries. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I also endorse the current state of this article. —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a formal proposal on the table, but I think the territories in the second section should be pared down. eg, New Caledonia should stay, but the other french territories should go. the australian territories should go, the american territories should go, the "international treaties" should go, kosovo should go, tokelau should go, most of the british ones should go, in particular the bases. SchmuckyTheCat 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? All these entities are inhabited dependencies of countries or are listed because of another reason. I could agree on a deletion of the bases, since they do not have any form of self-government. The french d.o.m. are not listed, since they are in the first place part of the motherland. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If you note, the intro includes 'areas of special sovereignty'. This is why the bases, for example, are included. I think the aim of this list is to be all-inclusive, as opposed to the more specific List of unrecognized countries or list of sovereign states. --Robdurbar 16:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can agree with that. On Cook, see [39], the website of the COok government, where it is clear that it is not a sovereign state. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Flag fixes

I fixed the display of some of the flags for dependent territories of France and Australia. Since the dependent territories of other countries (most notably the UK) do not display the mother country's flag on this list unless the dependencies do not have a flag of their own, those of Australia and France should also not display those countries' flags, for consistency. I removed the Australian flag from Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and the French flag from French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon (the last of which I had to fix the flagicon page to display the actual flag and not the French flag).

I also removed the flag listed for Mayotte and left only the French flag, since the Mayotte flag is not a flag but a coat of arms from what I see on the Mayotte page.

The only place I see that there might be an argument against my change is for Cocos (Keeling) Islands, since its flag is unofficial, unlike the similar one for Christmas Island.  OZLAWYER  talk  18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbia/Montenegro

Though we shouldn't predict the result of the referendum, so should wait till results are official, what stance are we gonna take over serbia/montenegro when the referendum is over and if the Montenegrans vote for independence? I think the simplest way would be to list 'Serbia/Montenegro' as one entity with a footnote.

Alternatively, we could list Serbia/Montenegro under the heading '1 state due to dissolve on (date)'; and then have serbia and montenegro listed as '2 states due to seceed on (date)'. Thoughts? --Robdurbar 23:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There likely won't be too much ambiguity as to what exact date S&M (tee-hee) will legally cease to be... as this is hopefully going to be a cleanish divorce involving two pre-existing and largely autonomous governments rather than a drawn-out war, the various diplomatic niceties about when sovereignty is officially forked and international recognition extended ought to be pretty clear-cut. Until then and no earlier, I say we stick with a strict legalish definition of it being one, with a disclaimer (like the one I wrote) reminding people to mentally add one to a few numbers if they wish to reflect the split as having already happened in terms of an expression of public will. The Tom 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Technical question, but shouldn't they be considered a single entity rather than two? There's one governor, no apparent legal distinction between the two chunks of lands, and of course one article. I'd merge, but it seems a bit drastic on an FA to knock the numbers around willy-nilly. The Tom 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It should be one entry. The CIA World Factbook lists them as two but the British Government lists them as one. I would be,live the British Government on this one. (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, bold I shall be. Anybody should feel free to revert and discuss this further should the humour strike them. The Tom 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for listing

I was wondering why only inhabited dependent territories are listed here? The distinction is not made on List of dependent territories - all are listed there. Would it not be easier to make this page the summary of List of sovereign states, List of unrecognized countries, and List of dependent territories? (Shocktm | Talk | contribs.) 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would be easier to think of this page as a summation, but perhaps there is merit in treating the word "country" with a bit more nuance than just the combined set of sovereign states, unrecognized states, and dependent territories. You could take the stance that countries are human constructions, and in the absence of permanent habitation they quite literally cease to be--I'm thinking along the lines of a forest ceasing to be a forest once all the trees are gone. In that sense it is broader than the other lists, but also narrower in that there's an added qualification of inhabitatation, which knocks out a few dependencies (but not, unsurprisingly, any states) from the summed list The Tom 22:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Mayotte and Tokelau flags

Changed the flag of Mayotte back from the flag of France to the Mayotte one. The CIA World Factbook says it is a flag (with a coat of arms on it, but a flag nonetheless), although unofficial. I don't think the unofficial status is that important, it is obviously accepted as the flag of Mayotte in Mayotte, even if not in France. There are several other unofficial flags on this list, including the one of Tokelau I just added as well. As long as it is accepted in the country it relates to, it should be on the list. Feel free to argue.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

They are unofficial, and only official flags should and will be used. —Nightstallion (?) 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Who made you dictator?  OZLAWYER  talk  14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody, but it's a question of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Who are we to decide which unofficial flags should be used if there's more than one? How unofficial is too unofficial for use in an encyclopedia? The nonsense will never end, so the clear byline is to use official flags. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't more than one official flag, really. It's not as though we're arguing which of more than one local flag is to be used. We're arguing whether the local flag should be shown over the colonial power's flag. For instance, with Mayotte you have "officialness" according to the people of the territory, and you have "officialness" according to France. None of France's overseas collectivities have official flags--it's not just Mayotte. You have to remove the flag from Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, and even French Polynesia (which I assume you will now do). France simply doesn't appear to believe that its possessions should have official flags, although the people of those places certainly do. If the CIA World Factbook agrees that while "unofficial" to France the flags are real enough to include, why shouldn't we?  OZLAWYER  talk  15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there's just one kind of officialness, meaning "adopted through a law". PYF's flag is official, SPM's, WLF's and MYT's aren't, which is why their templates don't use the local flags but the French one. —Nightstallion (?) 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Adopted through a law, eh? What about a non-legal political act? What about when laws conflict? Or policies? The flags of Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon are used in those countries as flags of those countries, despite there being no law legislating such from France. "Full stop."  OZLAWYER  talk  18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Non-legal political acts are cute, but irrelevant. We're already presenting those flags as "inofficial flag" in the respective articles, we should *not* be using them in templates representing those territories officially in international organisations or competitions, because they simply are *not* used for that. —Nightstallion (?) 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of these templates really go to anything other than this page and some flag template/country code pages because these places wouldn't have representation in any organization or competition, but would be represented as France itself. The only thing I could possibly imagine the French overseas collectivities being involved in would be a competition against each other (and even that is probably highly unlikely), in which case they almost certainly would compete under their own flags!  OZLAWYER  talk  20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

East Timor over Timor-Leste

I like Timor-Leste too, but until the name on the East Timor article changes (and there has been no consensus to change it yet), the name in this list should be East Timor to conform to that article.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that we usually use the conventional names to refer to particular countries (e.g. using Russia even during the rule of the Soviet Union, and Great Britain to refer to the United Kingdom), and now I can accept (though not agree) using the conventional name as the article name for East Timor, I think the same rule cannot be applied to the List of countries that has already stated clearly (and agreed upon by editors from the very beginning) in its 2nd paragraph that -

The names of countries in the list are given in English and include both the short official names (e.g. Afghanistan) and the (longer) official names (e.g. Islamic Republic of Afghanistan). The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute.

Please pay attention here - it's that the English official name rather than the conventional one be adopted in the List. The definition of English official name, from my point of view, is the name adopted by the government of the country and/or admitted by the international diplomacy (e.g. UN). So that's why we put, say for example, Côte d'Ivoire (not Ivory Coast) and Congo, Democratic Republic of (not Zaire) on the List. But we do add supplementary notes after these names, like (Formerly and commonly known as Ivory Coast) and (Formerly and commonly known as Zaire) to best reflect the situation.

So I think the official name principle should continue to be applied to this list. Your views please. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 19:01 (UTC)

• 89,500,000 hits for "East Timor".
• 15,700,000 hits for "Timor-Leste".

--Telex 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the statistics. Please note that as I said above, I accept (though not agree) using the conventional name East Timor as the name of that article. But what I'm discussing here is about the principle of adopting official (not conventional) names in the List of countries. Please treat the two issues separately. And one more point, I think most people input Ivory Cost rather than Côte d'Ivoire for that article, right? But it has no relations with my above discussion (not the previous discussion in the East Timor page). -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 19:18 (UTC)

And if we do choose to adopt conventional names for the List of countries, then the principle stated in its 2nd paragraph (i.e. using official names) should be revised. If we still stick to this principle, it must be strictly adhered to by adopting the official names used by the governments of the countries as well as by the international organizations like UN, rather than naming by conventions. The above just applies to this list. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/27, 19:46 (UTC)

I personally favour Pdytwong's argument. There's no need to apply the same standards used in Wikipedia's article titling conventions to the way the short-form country names are represented on this list. East Timor may well qualify for that title for its article, but ISO 3166 among other standards makes it clear that the official name, even in English, is "Timor-Leste" The Tom 19:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Should there be no objection/counter-suggestion by 3 June 2006, I'll realize my proposal by amending relevant entries as follows -

E

• See Timor-Leste for East Timor

T

• Timor-Leste - Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (popularly known as East Timor)

-- Pdytwong 2005/5/28, 14:25 (UTC)

My counter-objection is we keep it as it is. Will Macedonia have to be put under "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" under The Tom's proposal? It's already ridiculous that we seem to be pandering to the Greek view by calling it "Republic of" when there's not another country called Macedonia to make that necessary.

My proposal for naming is that the short form is the commonly used form, and the long form is the official long form. Then people can both find the countries by looking up the common name, and see the official long form name (from which the official short form should be able to be extracted).  OZLAWYER  talk  15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is if we take your proposal by adopting the commonly used short form instead the official one in this list, then shall we change Côte d'Ivoire (the official English shortform name registered with UN and adopted by ISO 3166) to Ivory Coast (the conventional name). If the answer is positive, then the principle laid down in para 2 of the list must be amended to tie in with such change. Besides, your concern about the case of Macedonia can easily be dealt with. As I said, the official names adopted in the list come from two sources, (a) the name adopted by the government of the country, and (b) the name registed with UN and/or other international organizations. If the two are different, the precedents agreed upon by editors are that the name of (a) precedes that of (b) followed by a remark. Examples are 'China, Republic of', 'Macedonia, Republic of' and 'Pridnestrovie'. And the name 'Macedonia, Republic of' is, in my opinion, a good compromise as such presentation can at the same time highlights the subject itself and also deal with the reality. The same mode of presentation also applies to the situation when two countries share the same short-form name, like Congo, Korea and Virgin Islands -- Pdytwong 2005/5/28, 16:08 (UTC)

For quite some time on this list the Koreas were listed as North and South, not the Republic and Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and the Congos were Congo-Kinshasa and Congo-Brazzaville until recently changed by the IP-address user who's being doing a lot of editing. I prefer those designations, as I prefer Taiwan over China, Republic of. The Macedonia issue is ridiculous--the country is called Macedonia. If there are no other Macedonias on this list then there is no reason to differentiate between a Republic of Macedonia and another Macedonia. As much as I prefer Côte d'Ivoire over Ivory Coast, I would probably agree to "Ivory Coast" if by doing so we could get rid of all the "[some kind of] Republic ofs" in the short forms (the Congos, the Chinas, the Koreas and Macedonia).  OZLAWYER  talk  18:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The essence of the discussion here is - whether we still stick to the 'official name' principle stated in para 2 of the List of countries that applies to both longform and shortform names. If the answer is in the positive, then it's not a matter of preference or convention but to conform to this rule. Just like the case of Myanmar, while majority of states doesn't recognize the present government there and still call the state Burma, the official shortform name both adopted by the government itself and registered with the UN (also ISO 3166) is Myanmar. As one of the best lists in Wikipedia, I hope this principle can be consistently applied and strictly complied with (unless it is altered with the 'consensus' of editors).

Apart from Côte d'Ivoire, another non-English country name adopted as English title is São Tomé and Príncipe (note: the English word 'and' instead of the Portugese word 'e' is used).

Last, as a side issue, it is just a matter of time for us to be accustomed to using the new names adopted by the countries, like Moldavia Vs Moldova, Belorussia Vs Belarus, Zaire Vs Congo, Rhodesia Vs Zimbabwe, New Hebrides Vs Vanuatu, Gold Coast Vs Ghana and many others.

-- Pdytwong 2005/5/29, 02:26 (UTC)

I'm in favour of Pdytwong's take on this issue; keep the official names. We're having "Republic of Macedonia" becaus that's the official name, FYROM is not the official name as declared by the Macedonian constitution. —Nightstallion (?) 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pdytwong:

You speak of this "official name principle" as though it were written by God. It's just a line in the list, and one which was never consistently applied anyway. I think its time has passed (actually, its time never came until recently, as many 'non-official' short-form names were the norm here). My point about my preference was indeed to say that we should abandon the principle and use the common names (actually I would propose a hybrid system where we could keep Côte d'Ivoire and maybe add Timor-Leste, but I suspect that people would protest that that's unfairly arbitrary).

As for consistency leading to this list being one of the "best," the version which was accepted for a featured list (the January 18 version, added on January 22) was not consistent. It did use ROC and PRC, it did have Timor-Leste over East Timor, but it used Congo (Brazzaville) and Congo (Kinshasa), it used Korea (North) and Korea (South), and it had Macedonia without the "Republic of." Actually, Macedonia survived up until April 2d when someone added the "Republic of."

A list of countries should be a list of countries most people know. I'm not exactly sure what your point was with São Tomé and Príncipe--yes, there is non-English in the name in that it uses São and not Saint, but the fact that it has an "and" and not an "e" shows it's at least partially Anglicized. Are you suggesting some strange form like Côte of Ivoire? If the common English usage for the name of a country (or of any geographic place) has been the local term, then the local term is "English" even if there is some sort of English literal translation (nobody's going on vacation to January's River--they're going to Rio de Janeiro). You will find that practically every country's name can be translated into something in English that is nothing like the country's real name. (In East Timor, the Timor comes from a word which actually means East, so a full translation is East East). Nobody does that, though. I'm not looking for the full English translations of names for this list, but the common usage in English.

As for the names being adopted eventually--maybe, maybe not. Wikipedia's not a crystal ball, and you're no fortune-teller either.

Nightstallion:

Republic of Macedonia is obviously a long-form name. I'm sure many of the other countries on this list have "Republic of" in their constitutions as their official names, too. That doesn't mean their short-form name disappears from existence.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, but WP:NPOV reigns supreme; the accepted compromise is to use "Republic of Macedonia" in Wikipedia until the dispute is settled. —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying simple "Macedonia" is POV? Those opposing simple "Macedonia" are the ones pushing a POV agenda. The country is Macedonia despite Greek objections over the name.  OZLAWYER  talk  17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer said "If the common English usage for the name of a country (or of any geographic place) has been the local term, then the local term is "English" even if there is some sort of English literal translation". I see no diffculty in applying this to Timor-Leste which, as Pdytwong had pointed out, is adopted by the UN as English name. So I revised the list. -- DD Ting 16:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But adoption by the UN does not equal the commonly accepted usage in English. That is East Timor.

I can't understand why we can accept using the "English new names" adopted by the countries (Côte d'Ivoire, Moldova, Belarus, Myanmar...) but just can't take the name Timor-Leste!!!!! -- Pdytwong 2005/5/29, 17:06 (UTC)

Well, Belarus and Moldova weren't countries before, they were Soviet Socialist Republics, so as countries they were never called anything but Belarus and Moldova (and, just for the record, Byelorussia and Moldavia were Russian names, dictated by the Soviet government, whereas Belarus and Moldova are Belarusian and Moldovan/Romanian respectively and dictated by the governments of those countries). As for Côte d'Ivoire, most English-speakers really do call it Ivory Coast, apparently (although I personally heard it called Côte d'Ivoire in school), but those pushing Côte d'Ivoire are fairly vocal, and so the name hasn't yet changed on Wikipedia. I would hazard a guess that if a proper vote were set up where enough of those interested were made aware, the Ivory Coast supporters would make up the majority.  OZLAWYER  talk  17:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer said "But adoption by the UN does not equal the commonly accepted usage in English", and "if a proper vote were set up, ...the Ivory Coast supporters would make up the majority". So do Burma (vs Myanmar) and East Timor (vs Timor-Leste). I agree that it is an uneasy task to universally apply the "official name" rule but we do strive for the best here. As you see, the official names Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar have been put on the list (with remarks for the conventional names Ivory Coast and Burma shown in brackets) from the very early begnning (for almost two years). No one (as far as I know) had ever attempted to change them to the 'commonly accepted' ones. Obviously, it reflects that the majority of viewers/editors here accepts the formal names (I prevent using 'official' to avoid further debate) to be put on this list (not other lists/articles in Wikipedia). So if we really wish to set up a vote, I suggest we put all the commonly used country names (including but not limited to those mentioned above) to vote instead of voting them one by one. It is because as Osgoodelawyer said above, people would protest against a hybrid system where we adopt different types of names (formal or conventional) for different countries put on the list. So consistency should be kept as far as possible. -- Pdytwong 2005/5/30, 02:13 (UTC)

I would actually be strongly in favour of such a vote, Pdytwong. Would you be willing to organise it? I think the current situation is horrible. Either we should have all countries at the "English" or "more common" names, or all at the currently official one. —Nightstallion (?) 06:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire has become also the more normal name used in the Anglophone world. Even the Times atlas uses Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar. It does use East Timor instead of Timor-Leste. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Consistency should be the primary concern here. To achieve this, we shall either universally adopt the official names or the conventional ones througout the list. What I said above is that if we choose the latter, we just put all names to vote (no matter they are controversial or not) and the results will definitely not be agreeable or satisfactory to all. As Electionworld mentioned, Côte d'Ivoire has become the more normal name. That means, as I already pointed out, more and more people will naturally use the new names adopted by the countries as time goes by. So does Timor-Leste. For me, the most simplest way is to preserve status quo, i.e. to stick to the "official name" priniciple stated in paragraph 2 of this list and add all other names (conventional, former, official descrption for legal purposes, diplomatic...) in the footnotes. -- Pdytwong 2005/6/2, 02:41 (UTC)

I concur with that. —Nightstallion (?) 07:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• East Timor is the English name and this is the English article. There is no argument here. The Ivory Coast, in English, is the Ivory Coast. We do not call it Cote D'Ivoire or whathaveyou because that is not its English name. In French, we will refer to it by its French name. In all languages for East Timor, they list it as East in their respective language and then Timor, example, Dwyrain Timor in Welsh. Are you to change all these to Timor Leste as well? It is purely anti-English language drivel to keep reverting it to Timor Leste. Enzedbrit 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

See below

Macedonia

From the CIA World Factbook:

• conventional long form: Republic of Macedonia
• conventional short form: Macedonia; note - the provisional designation used by the UN, EU, and NATO is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
• local long form: Republika Makedonija
• local short form: Makedonija

Both conventional and local short forms are Macedonia. Why would we pander to Greece on our list by always using "Republic of"?

 OZLAWYER  talk  14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I support omitting "Republic of" from the short form name of Macedonia. -- DD Ting 16:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Coverage of Footnotes

I've made further amendments/additions to the footnotes of the list which cover the following -

• Alternative names of countries.
• Political/Legal status of countries.
• Federal states (Theoretically speaking, the federal states and their component states are both sovereign. However, the latter are not regarded as separate entities included in this list. So they are highlighted for viewers' reference).
• Membership of confederations, namely EU and CIS (While members of confederations remain sovereign, the latter are granted by their members certain authorities which make them accrue more nation-like characteristics. So footnotes are added to draw viewers' attention).
• In case of more than one sovereign entities sharing the same head of state that constitutes a special relationship between them vis-à-vis others (including Andorra/France, the Commonwealth Realms, and to a certain extent Holy See/Vatican City).
• Citing/Cross reference (e.g. 'See also...').

-- DD Ting 08:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You've certainly done a lot of work here, but much of it is redundant, as the preliminary information notes what countries are, for instance, overseas collectivities of France, British dependencies, and the like (which you've included in footnotes). Also, the information on the EU and CIS is really not relevant to a list of countries. This is not an article about how countries interrelate. You might as well add MERCOSUR, the Andean Community, the African Union, NAFTA, ASEAN and who knows how many other political and economic cooperative organizations to the footnotes.  OZLAWYER  talk  20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The EU is a suprantional organization whereto a degree of sovereignty has been transferred by the member ocuntries. It is not just a normal international organization of countries. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is a confederation of countries. But even the other organizations I mentioned take on some roles that confederations do. It's a matter of degree. The point is that this article is simply a list of countries, and the EU/CIS information is extraneous to its purpose.  OZLAWYER  talk  00:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not necesary to include CIS reference, but since the EU has its own legislative system, it could be included in the notes. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 05:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support including the EU notes, since the EU is far more than the other international organisations. CIS needn't be included, though. —Nightstallion (?) 05:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree to delete CIS but preserve EU as it has been regarded as far more than an ordinary international organizations, including the CIA World Factbook. -- DD Ting 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer said "You've certainly done a lot of work here, but much of it is redundant, as the preliminary information notes what countries are, for instance, overseas collectivities of France, British dependencies, and the like (which you've included in footnotes)". Well, as you're aware, most of the footnotes have already existed in the list as remarks to the countries. It's Electionworld who kindly reorganized them into footnotes. I just made some touch-ups with a few additions. If what you said (redundant) is really the case, the remarks (now footnotes) have already existed here alongside the preliminary information for more than 1 year. And it's obvious that no one has ever challenged the co-existence of both and many of us just help fine-tune them. If you really consider them redundant, I just wonder why you didn't raise this before the footnotes were created. So please do look into the background before making any comment. Thanks. -- DD Ting 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. For some reason I was thinking that the dependencies and the like did not have the information after them in the list. It's hard to discern tone online, but you seem to be taking my comment a little personally—it was only meant as a bit of constructive criticism.  OZLAWYER  talk  13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I had taken your comment a bit personally. And that's why I pointed out above that you (also including all others and me) should look into the background before making any comment. And we should pay attention to the presentation as it is very easy to cause misunderstanding to others, especially when the comment refers to wrong facts. Anyway, happy editing. -- DD Ting 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I'm going to have to disagree with the crazed sweeping of as much information into footnotes as possible. For one, there's a tremendously disproportionate percentage of the article contained in them. Footnotes, by their very nature, are largely peripheral details, and in some cases pretty explicitly useful information as to what is and isn't a state is being hidden waaaay down at the bottom of the article. Secondly, part of the reason an extensively laid-out rationale for how the list is constructed was put at the top was precisely so readers could assess the rubric used in the article and construct their own count of the number of countries should their purposes not correspond with the starting point of 243. There are numberous yardsticks for counting countries, ours is a good one that I'm quite fond of, admittedly, but the article is of much broader usefulness if readers can instantly see to what extent such numbers are inflated by entities many people might rightly or wrongly not consider countries. A straightforward tree at the top lets that be done quickly and respectfully of people's own opinions on such matters, rather than stashing such information in a sea of footnotes at the bottom along with largely-irrelevant (IMHO) trivia about who's in the EU and who's a Commonwealth Realm and so on. There are separate articles for those facts. This one is about constructing a definitive list of countries. Finally, while no featured article should be expected to remain static, I've always felt it prudent to be a bit more conservative when dealing with territory that's been hashed-over and thumbs-upped in the past. The Tom 22:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

To end the dispute, I've reverted the list to June 1 edition which seemed having no dispute by most who made comments here. -- DD Ting 07:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there were disputes. Reverting back, because you made major changes to other things by reverting.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you really look into the editing history, you can see that at the time of the June 1 edition I hadn't made any "major changes" as you said. And my so-called "major changes" are just rearrangement of footnotes made by others. In a nutshell, the root of the "disputes" (if they really exist) were not caused by me. Even I don't think those who made the footnotes had caused any "disputes". It's obvious that the "disputes" were caused by other reasons. Going back to the June 1 edition, many of us (including you and me) had made minor touch-ups around the time but it seemed we did not have major differences on the presentation at that time. So the reversion was made. -- DD Ting 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares whose edits were the "root cause"? The fact that there are edits since June 1 obviously means there are those not happy with the June 1 edit. The Tom and I, and clearly others, are unhappy with the extent of the footnotes, for one. In addition, you've reverted edits since June 1 that are necessary (such as reformatting of punctuation before footnotes, as per Wikipedia:Footnotes), and have not re-added them, which is required when one reverts.  OZLAWYER  talk  16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You argued that I didn't consider your new edits before making reversion. My answer to your argument is simple: why I chose to revert to June 1 edition is because I am "not happy with" (as quoted from you) your edits (please don't treat this personal as I just don't like the style of those edits). If disregarding your edits, there are only very few new contents for the subsequent edits made by others. So I chose to revert and prepare for making further touch-ups (but before I did so, you made the reversion).

Besides, I'm disspointed of what you said. As noted from the editing history since June 1, you had made amendments by overriding others' revisions without any reasons (at least I had put my points here). I like some others' edits (e.g. The Tom) that did preserve those which they considered worth preserving. -- DD Ting 11:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made minor touch-ups with the missing notes for Falkland Islands readded. Originally I also planned to revise the notes in brackets a little bit to make it look like the format that this list was previously honoured (e.g. to amend "French overseas collectivity" as "overseas collectivity of France" so as to avoid using too many adjectives). But having thought twice, I decided not to waste too much effort as the revisions would very likely be reverted by someone who do not like other to edit his "contributions" even just a slash or brackets. To all, sorry that some of my editions (as well as those by others) had caused uncertainty to this list recently. In order to prevent endless debate, I chose not to make major amendments at the moment.-- DD Ting 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Guernsey's dependencies

What's the justification for including Saint Helena's dependencies (Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island) as separate entities but not Guernsey's dependencies (Alderney, Sark, and Herm)? I know it would seem a little weird to include an island with a population of 60 people (Herm) as a country, but Tristan da Cunha itself only has a population of approximately 280 (Sark has 610 and Alderney has 2400). Don't Guernsey's dependencies fall into pretty much the same category of entities as Saint Helena's?  OZLAWYER  talk  04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I, personally, am against including Saint Helena's dependencies; at most they should be mentioned together with Saint Helena, but not more. —Nightstallion (?) 11:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are they actually dependencies, though, or simply just devolved local governments with an asymmetric relationship to the "central government" akin to how the Scottish Parliament's relationship to Westminister? Are there any Channel Islanders on Wikipedia who might be able to clarify this? The Tom 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha

Both Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha are separate UK overseas territories but are administered through Saint Helena owing to their remote locations and limited population. As you can see in the [UK FCO's homepage [40], [41], [42], [43], they are listed separately in the profiles of countries and overseas territories, and have their own information pages. A notable example of their uniqueness is that both of them issue and use their own stamps and have their own local laws (you may refer to their respective articles in Wikipedia for reference). So I put them on the list again. -- DD Ting 14:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They're included in ISO 3166-1 of Saint Helena, though, so they're not considered to be *that* separate officially... —Nightstallion (?) 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As you're aware, the overseas departments of France like Reunion are also included in the ISO 3166-1 list but they are not on the List of countries. On the other hand, the British Crown Dependencies are also not on the ISO 3166-1 list. For the List of countries, it has its own definitions which are mainly political. Indeed, both dependencies are treated as separate territories by the UK government. They have their own Administrators and laws but probably due to remoteness and limited population, they are put under the Governorship of Saint Helena. So they are referred to by the UK Government as "dependencies of Saint Helena". Besides, in the ISO 3166-1 list there are indeed reserved codes for them alongside others like the Crown dependencies. Please see ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. -- DD Ting 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say ISO is the clearcut delimiter between what's a country and what isn't, mind you. FWIW, Jersey and Guernsey have been promoted to full ISO entities and reserved hardly means much when Clipperton Island's got a reservation dating back to IPU assignment or whatever the case might have been. The Tom 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

French Polynesia and the Overseas Communities

I changed the designation of "overseas collectivity" to that of "overseas community", as per what the article on that type of entity says. I removed the "overseas country" designation from French Polynesia, since it's listed in the top section only as an overseas collectivity (now community), even though it's officially also called an overseas country. If someone wants to redesignate it an overseas country, then the top part will have to be rewritten to indicate the dual naming.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the change proposed by Osgoodelawyer but just wonder if we also need to revise the related articles of the four oversea communities as they are still referred to as "overseas collectivities" there. Concerning French Polynesia, it became an overseas community (collectivity) in 2003 with the particular designation of "overseas country" to underline the large autonomy of the territory. Someone points out that the full title of it should be "Overseas Country of French Polynesia". The CIA World Factbook names it "Overseas Lands of French Polynesia". Does anyone have idea about what its official long-form title in English is? -- DD Ting 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands

The long form name of Pitcairn Islands is "Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno Islands". Please see UK FCO website and CIA World Factbook. -- DD Ting 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sui generis status of Akrotiri and Dhekelia

This is a misuse of the term "sui generis." Akrotiri and Dhekelia clearly can be and are included in a wider term, Sovereign Base Areas. In fact, if you check Sovereign Base Areas you'll see that there was another one in the past, the Treaty Ports in Ireland. I don't know how to rename it, though, since they're Sovereign Base Areas, plural so "1 Sovereign Base Area on the island of Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia" doesn't work. OzLawyer 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's sui generis today. I think we should make clear that SBA isn't a "class" of British dependencies, it's a descriptive term applied to one territory that is a still part of the "overseas territory" class. Its merits men tion only because its governance isn't civilian like other OTs, but tied to the military chain of command. The Tom 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't an SBA be a subclass of the class of entites called overseas territories? And just because it's the single remaining entity in that subclass, that doesn't make it sui generis--the subclass still exists. It is a pair of sovereign base areas. I say throw it together with the rest of the overseas territories and simply note that they're sovereign base areas. OzLawyer 00:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that there are indeed something which make the SBAs sui generis vis-a-vis other overseas territories of the UK, say for example: (i) The SBAs are put under the administration of the Ministry of Defence, not the FCO; (ii) While the UK government has sovereignty over the SBAs, the legal system of the SBAs are separate from those of the UK and Cyprus. And the UK Government declared that the laws applicable to the Cypriot population in SBAs will be as far as possible the same as the laws of Cyprus; (iii) Only military personnel and supporting civilian staff as well as their families reside in the SBAs. British Overseas Territories citizens (BOTCs) are not entitled to apply for full British citizenship if their BOT citizenship is just connected solely with the SBAs; (iv) The SBAs are retained as military bases – not “colonial ” territories. I have no preference on the classfication as it depends whether you just regard the above charateristics as internal administrative arrangements or it is constitutional. -- DD Ting 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is disputing that they work differently from other overseas territories. But the term sui generis requires more than simple differences. And even if the differences are enough that they're considered something "different" from the rest of the overseas territories, all it does is create a subclass of overseas territories, the Sovereign Base Areas, of which there are currently only two (or one which is referred to plurally). This does not result in the SBAs being sui generis. They do fit in somewhere, even if they currently fit in there all alone. To call Akrotiki and Dhekelia sui generis stretches the meaning of the term more than is acceptable. OzLawyer 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • As I had said above very clearly, it depends on how one treats the abovementioned differences, i.e. constitutional or just ordinary administrative. From my point of view, the SBAs do have some "constitutional" differences against other overseas territories. For instance, no other territories are used solely for military purposes. All BOTCs in other territories are entitiled for UK citizenship. None of the other territories have their laws be modelled to suit the laws of the neighbouring countries. And most importantly, it is the MOD, not FCO, that administer the SBAs. So I would say SBAs have a different (or unique) "constitutional" (or at least legal) status vis-a-vis others. To me, as said, I really have no preference on the classification as it's no doubt an "overseas territory of UK". Whether to name it "sui generis" is subjective and depends on one's own judgement. One would prefer using "sui generis" just based on the above differences, while the other would say it's not enough. So it's indeed an open-ended question and could hardly find a perfect answer. For the classifiations of dependencies that we put on the list, they are mainly based on the official status given by their sovereign states. As other than "overseas territory of UK", I couldn't find any information about the official status of SBAs in the FCO or other UK government websites, it's better preserving status quo until further info is known. But if someone put it into a separate group as SBAs, I have no obection to this. -- DD Ting 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • And as I have said above (twice), even if constitutionally, legally, and actually, Akrotiri and Dhekelia are different from the rest of the BOTs, the fact that Akrotiri and Dhekelia are included in an identifiable subclass (the SBAs), which used to include other entities (the Irish Treaty Ports), makes the term "sui generis" in all cases inappropriate. Let me attempt to make this point using a hypothetical example: If, for instance, the BOTs were reduced to just one, or if, in another instance, the Crown Dependencies were reduced to just one, we would not decide to call the remaining entity in either of those classes a "sui generis" entity. The classes they belong to exist despite the lack of any other remaining entities in them. The entity would remain a BOT or a CD--it would not magically get a "sui generis" designation. It has a class, it belongs to the class. The fact that a class (or in the case of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, a "subclass") exists which an entity belongs to automatically negates the idea of a sui generis entity. This is entirely different from the sui generis entity that is New Caledonia, which does not fit in any way into another class. OzLawyer 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I think you still don't understand what The Tom had said above. What you said is that as the "Sovereign Bases Areas" is already a designation, we would just simply categorize the SBAs in Cyprus using such designation if we're going to do so. In The Tom's proposal, "sui generis" is just a description or an adjective (not a constitutional designation) to refer to the uniqueness of the SBAs. It has nothing to do with the "sui generis" status of New Caledonia (a constitutional designation). Just like we call both Aruba (as you just amended) and Falkland Islands "overseas territories" of the Netherlands and the UK respectively but it doesn't mean that both are of the same constitutional status. The debate here is by nature the same as the previous debate on the definition of dependencies. Let me put it in this way: Here we have 4 entities that were originally put under the category of dependencies but are now classified as "special entities" which their special positions are recognized by international treaty or agreement. But someone challenged such classification by aruging that these entities are already covered by the definition of dependencies (here the word "dependency" has nothing to do with constitutional designations). Meanwhile, someone might also argue that these entities can be further divided into at least 3 categories (Hong Kong and Macao are classified as one). Say, in simple terms, why Macao is a "special entities recognized by international treaty" but not a "PRC special adminstrative region recognized by international treaty". It's just a subjective judegement and has no definite answer. However, it will be an endless debate if all of us insist on our own interpretation. The only way to solve this is to have consensus among the editors. To me, as I said, I have no objection to putting the SBAs under a separate category using its own name. So if it's really going to have a vote amongst the three possible options (i.e. (a) putting under the category of "overseas territory of UK" alongside others, (b) putting under a separate category "sui generis overseas territory of UK", and (c) putting under a separate category "Sovereign Base Areas"), I will choose (c). -- DD Ting 03:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
            • This is getting really trying. Words have meanings, and the meaning of "sui generis", coupled with the actual circumstances (that A&D are called something which once included something else--that is, they've been classified, and so can be classified) makes the use of sui generis completely inappropriate (they fit in somewhere!). New Caledonia is identified constitutionally as a sui generis entity because it is a sui generis entity. A&D are not, since they fit in somewhere. It doesn't matter whether anything is constitutionally designated or not. If, under the meaning of sui generis, that term is inappropriate, then that term should not be used. OzLawyer 12:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Based on your logic, Jersey is a British Crown Dependency because it is a dependency. In this regard, "dependency" is the designation and constitutional status of Jersey. Then my question is, how about other overseas territories that we put them under the broad category of dependency? Is "dependency" also their designation? It's obvious that it's just a description. You may argue that "sui generis" has a definite meaning for a particular purpose. But you can't deny that it's also a description, just like de facto, de jure, special, etc. According to the Wikipedia article on sui generis, the word literally means "of its own kind/genus or unique in its characteristics"'. And the expression was effectively created by scholastic philosophy to indicate an idea, an entity or a reality that cannot be included in a wider concept. As what I had mentioned above, the charateristics of A&D are unique vis-a-vis other overseas territories. So I couldn't see any problem when The Tom used "sui generis" to describe the uniqueness of A&D. That's my point. -- DD Ting 16:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
                • You're still not getting it. A&D once had a companion, the Treaty Ports in Ireland. It had enough in common with something else for it to get designated something, that something was a Sovereign Base Area. It also has enough in common with another thing, the British Overseas Territories, that it has been designated a BOT. That is why it cannot be considered sui generis. It is already considered to fit in somewhere (two places, actually, take your pick on which). As I said before, it doesn't matter that it is now the only SBA left, the SBAs are a grouping which it fits into. Are you getting it yet? As I tried to explain by way of example earlier, and which I'll repeat now, if Guernsey and Jersey (two of the three Crown Dependencies) were to become independent nations, that would leave only the Isle of Man as a Crown Dependency. It would be unique compared to the other entities connected with the UK/GB (the BOTs). But it wouldn't be sui generis, would it? It would be a Crown Dependency. It would fit into a category, despite being the last of the things that fit into that category. It would not be sui generis. And neither is Akrotiri and Dhekelia. OzLawyer 16:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you look into the texts of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty that granted UK the right to retain control over the three treaty ports on the island of Ireland, you will notice that there had never made mention of "sovereign base areas" or even the UK sovereignty over the ports. The terms are recapitulated below for your reference -

"7. The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty’s Imperial Forces

(a) In the time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and

(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a Foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of such defence as aforesaid.

ANNEX

The following are the specific facilities required:-

Dockyard Port at Berehaven

(a) Admiralty property and rights to be retained as at the date hereof. Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Queenstown

Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties. Certain mooring buoys to be retained for use of His Majesty's ships.

Belfast Lough

Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties.

Lough Swilly

Harbour defences to remain in charge of British care and maintenance parties."

On the other hand, in respect of A&D, the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee states that -

"ARTICLE III The Republic of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey undertake to respect the integrity of the areas retained under United Kingdom sovereignty at the time of the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, and guarantee the use and enjoyment by the United Kingdom of the rights to be secured to it by the Republic of Cyprus in accordance with the Treaty concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus signed at Nicosia on to­day's date."

It's very clear that UK has sovereignty over A&D that is recognized by Cyprus, Greece and Turkey. As compared with the Treaty Ports in Ireland, I even doubt whether such ports are "sovereign base area" per se. To me, A&D is unique enough to be described (not designated) as sui generis.

-- DD Ting 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'll hand it to you, you'll certainly go further than I to try to prove a point. That said, I still think we'll have to agree to disagree. The fact that A&D can be and is described and designated anything at all means that it is understood to not be sui generis. Whether that's an official SBA designation (with or without the existence of other SBAs), or just the BOT status itself, any designation is enough to make A&D not sui generis. We're just fighting about use of language now, not status. You mean that A&D is "different," but you think that's the same as "sui generis." I don't. OzLawyer 19:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply and I'm happy that you finally got the point. Well, I'm eager to take up the task to search for the actual status of the Treaty Ports to see if they belong to the same category as A&D. But as far as the classification of this list is concerned, as I said earlier, I had already voted for putting A&D under a separate category "Sovereign Base Areas". By the way, I enjoy discussing with you and others here and anywhere in Wikipedia that alway gives me the drive to find out the truth. Happy editing. -- DD Ting 02:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Timor-Leste

I don't agree with the POV attempts of chaning Timor-Leste to East Timor and Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast; what I do agree with is that we should finally get this standardised across Wikipedia. Anyone up to organising a vote on Timor-Leste, Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar and whichever other countries we can find for which common and official names differ? —Nightstallion (?) 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• The difference here is that East is an English word for Portuguese 'Leste' just as in German it is Osttimor and in Welsh Dwyrain Timor and so on and so forth. Ivory Coast is English for Côte d'Ivoire. Zealand in New Zealand changes little from language to language but the New takes on that language's version of 'new'. We are keeping the Timor as we keep Myanmar, as we keep Singapore, as we keep the names of countries in lots of native languages, but there is no justifiable reason why the English language EAST must succumb to Portuguese LESTE when we are speaking our own language of a country that has a name in that language, which is East Timor. Some might think it's wonderful, liberal, new-age and hippy to call a country by its Portuguese name, perhaps attoning for colonial guilt, western riches or blah blah blah, but really it is insulting and ridiculous to think expect speakers of a language to forego their language to suit baseless politics. Had East Timor been first known to the English speaking world as Timor-Leste and with the pronunciation of this word, then chances are the country would now be known as Timor Lest. It is not. It is East Timor, and there is no argument. Enzedbrit 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No, do not organize a vote. The definition now is clear, we use the official short name in English as preferred by the country's government. We can change that, but then we should use the names normally used now in reference works. Côte d'Ivoire has become the more normal name used in the Anglophone world. Even the Times atlas uses Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar. It does use East Timor instead of Timor-Leste. I would suggest in that case Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar, East Timor and Transnistria, since these are the names nowadays used in English. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I live in the Anglophone world and have never heard the Ivory Coast referred to as 'Cott Deevoah'. There is a clear distinction between Myanmar and Côte d'Ivoire too. Do you propose that we stop saying 'Thailand' because the English word 'land' isn't Thai? Enzedbrit 10:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Burma is just the English translation of the Burmese word Myanmar. No Ivory Coast is in english never reffered to as Cott Deevoah, but in present Anglophone reference works, Côte d'Ivoire is usually used. See e.g. the CIA World Factbook or the last edition of the Times atlasses. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Electionworld's comment as the priniciple has already been stated clearly in para 2 of the list unless we change it. -- DD Ting 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I had already pointed out, the country names in question are all adopted by their governments as their official titles in English and all these names are all accepted by and registered with the UN & ISO. Here in this list the naming criteria is the official names adopted by the countries and used by the international organizations. If we compare CIA World Factbook/Times Atlas with UN/ISO, I would say the latter prevails. -- DD Ting 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

To make my point clear, I was not speaking about *this* article only, I was speaking of Wikipedia on the whole. Are we using Timor-Leste or not? It's incongruent to use Côte d'Ivoire, but not Timor-Leste... —Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I support your proposal, Nightstallion. There are certainly some standardization issues around Wikipedia which need looking after, and this is definitely one of them. I'm a little worried that the outcome will be opposite to what I prefer, but that's the risk you take. Put me on a list or whatever to get this thing started. OzLawyer 13:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I also suppport the proposal. As Osgoodelawyer said, the outcome would not always meet one's own wish. But if it is really proposed to extend the scope of standardization from this list to other parts of Wikipedia, I think all of us here will definitely back up the proposal and give a hand with it. By the way, let me tell you an interesting example. When you browse the website of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and search for the National Olympic Committees (NOC), you will find Ivory Coast but at the same time Timor-Leste! :) But you may also remember that during the parade of the national athlete teams in the Centennial Olympic at Atlanta (1996) which was in order with the English country names, the name in use was Côte d'Ivoire (Timor-Leste hadn't declared independence at that time). So the actual situation is very complicated and beyond our expectation. That's why I always propose adopting the official names here as far as possible. -- DD Ting 15:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate on East Timor/Timor-Leste seems to be never-ending. I won't argue for either version, since in fullness of time, it may eventually be sorted out (I say "may", because "Burmyanmar" and "Ivory Côte" still haven't had their name sorted definitively in the English-speaking world as shown by this debate). I can think of another place though that had a similar problem: Iran (Persia). I believe that some government of Persiran had declared its official name to be Iran, but the rest of the world didn't catch on for while. Other countries with similar problems included Congo/Zaire and Haiti/St.Dominque. Of course, other countries didn't have to go through naming troubles and have their native, Spanish (or Italian) names used without controversy in English: Peurto Rico (Rich Port), Costa Rica (Rich Coast), Venezuela (Little Venice), El Salvador (the Saviour) and Ecuador (Equator).72.27.107.50 00:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• So do Los Angeles, La Costa and San Diego. -- DD Ting 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)