Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 - Jul to Dec 2006 9 - Jan to Jul 2007

[edit] National and royal anthems

Discussions at Talk:Australia and Talk:God Save the Queen have led me here for some guidance. The debate at Australia focuses on the inclusion of God Save the Queen in the facts table as the Royal Anthem of Australia, following the format on most Commonwealth Realm articles. The debate at Talk:Australia seemed to conclude that only the national anthem should be included in the facts table, and the Royal Anthem should be footnoted. However, after reading through the guidelines here on facts tables, I see no provision even for a national anthem to be included.

Is there a policy regarding national anthems and royal anthems? If not, I feel strongly that one should be created as it would have scope over many articles on Wikipedia. --G2bambino 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is something we need. Why don't you run something up and we can see who salutes it? Battling over anthems on every country page with those who love or loath them seems to be a waste of our time and talent. --Pete 01:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points:

Wikipedia does not need this sort of "consistency". Templates like the infobox, and WikiProject guidelines are there to give a uniform style and encourage writing of good article, not to make sure that each box/article contains exactly the same details. Articles on different countries will be different. It is not correct to decide that a royal anthem is important enough to belong in one country's infobox, so it should be there in all the others. It is even less helpful to change 13 or so of them, and then say "look, everyone else has it". Without that sort of thing, there wouldn't be any battle to start with. As a basic principle, there is nothing wrong with slight differences, although whether people like the anthem should not be a factor in any discussions.
More to the point, the country infobox is already ridiculously long. A Royal Anthem would have to be considered exceedingly important for it to be added to the box for any country. National anthems may be acceptable, but that doesnt' mean the royal anthem also needs to be there. As G2bambino hs pointed out elsewhere, we don't include every official flag or symbol. We single out a few things, and we should make sure that the things we single out are the most relevant.

JPD (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, every country has an info table, and they all stick to the same format, as far as I can see. However, there's actually no provision for where and when to put an anthem, or which anthems to put. So, I'm inclined to agree with Pete here, in that a debate on every country article on what anthems to include and where isn't very productive when an all-encompasing policy could be established; and, as I said, this applies not only to royal anthems, but to national ones as well. I think it would go a long way to resolving disputes that have gone on, are going on, or may arise in future. --G2bambino 14:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

There is room for flexibility within the basic format. Wikipedia doesn't do "policies" for that sort of thing. The guideline that is already on the front page of this Wikiproject recommends including the national anthem, and doesn't say anything about royal anthems. ("This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. ... Next, there is a table with quick facts about the country. ... The contents are as follows: ... National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.") As I said, there would need to be a very strong argument for the inclusion of any other anthem, as the table is already overly long. JPD (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

~~:Sorry, where is this? I'm looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Facts table, and I don't see any mention of anthems at all. --G2bambino 18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Okay, I see it now. --G2bambino 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, those editors who wish to go against established procedures should have to mount a strong case for their non-conformity. In the case of Australia, this has not happened, and I find it hard to accept the argument that the template is already too long in this one article when these editors are not making the same case for other articles, nor do they have any history of advocating shorter templates for any other reason. For things like templates, consistency of presentation across articles is important for readers. If all nations that have a Royal Anthem listed in their infobox, but Australia does not, then readers will be misled into thinking that Australia does not have a Royal Anthem. It is ridiculous that Australia and Canada have the same situation, yet the infobox does not reflect this. --Pete 01:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The task is now to amend the guidelines to reflect multiple official anthems and how we handle them. Hail to the Chief has no legislative basis in the U.S. and should not be included. God Save the Queen is an official anthem of Canada and should be included. Doubtless there are other cases for special purpose anthems. Suggested wording, anybody? --Pete 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pete, as I have already stated on Talk:God Save the Queen, I fully agree with you that conformity should be considered above all other considerations on wikipedia, especially when keeping the Empire in tact, send them to the gallows! But just a small point, Canada and Australia are different in that the royal anthem has some significance in Canada as it is played several times a day any time a Governor or the Governor-General is officiating, this is not the case in Australia where the national anthem is played. It is a historical footnote for Australia. The mass confusion (with buildings burning down and everything) that you refer to regarding editors being under the preposterous assumption that Australia does not actually have a royal anthem will be alleviated by readers actually reading the article (gasp) which pays full homage to the Royal Anthem and includes a full explanation in the footnote. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Too wordy. We need something that is concise and to the point. --Pete 03:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Another good point my friend, wordiness in an encyclopaedia, this really needs to be dealt with. Wiki Townsvillia n 03:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What about those countries such as the UK that don't have an official national anthem, but do have a royal anthem? TharkunColl 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom we don't have very much that is 'official'. Our flag, national anthem, et al are only such by convention.

Australia has a Royal Anthem by more than convention, but by a legislative basis. Other Commonwealth Realms that just have it only by convention still have it included on their infoboxes! Biofoundationsoflanguage 09:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And I would suggest that most of those countries should not include it in their infoboxes, since the question is not whether it is an anthem by convention, legislation, or proclamation (in Australia's case, it is proclamation, not legislation), but how significant the anthem is. Noone is arguing that GSTQ is not the British anthem because it has not been officially adopted (other than Pete's flawed comment about legislative basis). Noone is suggesting that royal anthems should not be included when they are the de facto national anthem. It's just that in most cases there is no good reason to go against the established procedure of only including one anthem. I do have a history of campaigning against overdoing infoboxes, and I am making the case against having the royal anthem in many articles other than Australia - I am just not so obsessed with conformity that I will go out of my way to achieve this in articles I would not otherwise edit. And that's a good thing, because as WikiTownsvillian points out, the situation in Canada is not the same as in Australia. Uniformity is not a valid argument. JPD (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about uniformity of presentation of information, not uniformity of nations. WikiTownsvillian is incorrect in his assumptions, as noted at Talk:Australia. Some nations have more than one anthem and I would like to see this addressed - obviously each nation will have a national anthem, and it doesn't matter whether it is legislated, proclaimed, voted on the Internet or whatever, we include it. The question is how we present other anthems such as royal anthems. --Pete 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow Pete, you had me on side until now, but you had to take it just the little bit too far didn't you... I would STRONGLY oppose the inclusion on any article on a country of a National Anthem (or even a royal anthem) that was only supported by a vote on the Internet without any legislation or proclamation backing it up from an official source. Sorry mate, I still support you with the British Empire stuff though, keep it consistent I say, doesn't really matter whether the counties actually use it or not, it's uniformity of the realm that should be out top priority. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 05:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

So you think we should investigate national anthems on a nation by nation basis and if you don't think their foundation is strong enough, pull 'em off? Even if the local editors of the Grand Fenwick article disagree? But at least I've got you thinking about wikistandards, which is something, I guess. --Pete 01:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Pete, I don't think I'm talking about whichever of WikiTownsvillian's assumptions that you claim are wrong. I am talking about the simple fact that part of GSTQ is part of the official Vice-Regal Salute in Canada, but isn't in Australia. That is at least one example of how the situation is not the same. (If you ask me, the Canadian approach makes more sense, but that's not the point.) The question is indeed how we present other anthems, and in general I think we shouldn't present them in the infobox. (Why have the national and royal anthems of Norway, but only the national flag, not the royal standard, etc.?) But the case for inclusion/exclusion is not exactly the same in each country. JPD (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The situation is different for all nations - that pretty much goes without saying, at least until Wikipedia takes over direct world government and we can get things sorted out properly. Do you have a draft wording that we can use to cover the situation? --Pete 01:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Good - it seems like we all here acknowledge that the situation differs between countries. The next step is to then acknowledge that one shouldn't force consistency of presentation if the facts themselves are not consistent. Surely, accuracy is more important than presentation? --Merbabu 08:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I take it then that there's to be no uniform treatment for royal anthems? --G2bambino 02:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a line to the "Facts table" entry, citing Canada as an example. If anybody disagrees with my wording, they should also be prepared to say why they didn't propose an alternative during the lengthy discussion period. --Pete 03:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It’s got nothing to do with "wording". From where I sit, this just seems like a (another) cynical ploy from Skyring to get the RA into Australia despite a clear decision on that page. It’s pointless going over and over – what Skyring calls ‘consistency of information’ should never take priority over accuracy of information, and accuracy includes not giving undue weight. How tedious does this have to be? --Merbabu 06:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal feelings on a single article, the discussion is about coming up with a wiki-wide guideline, as identified by another editor at the beginning of this section. Kindly either contribute in a positive and helpful manner, or let others do the work without interference. I also note that these are guidelines, and do not force editors to include material if there is a local consensus about it - see the discussion above. --Pete 06:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you will not use this to help push the Royal Anthem into the Australia infobox? Until such assurrances are made, I cannot support your proposal - regardless of wording. The fact is, despite what you have argued so far, one cannot have consistency of presentation, without consistency of fact. There is very clear distinctions between various countries on this topic and this has been raised several timesin recent weeks. You do acknowledge such inconsistency of anthem usage, right? --Merbabu 06:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that Skyring a r g u es not to give undue weight to unnotable info over consistency of well established sections of articles when it suits his politics, I am not of course not saying he is wrong on that article, but Skyring seems to play with wikipedia policies to suit whatever argument he feels like having on any particular day. Wiki Townsvillia n 06:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of politics. Again, if you can't contribute in a positive manner, then I suggest you drop the personal attacks as well. --Pete 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, let's stick to the issue, not editors. This goes for everyone here lest accusations of hypocrisy emerge. Please all see WP:KETTLE, contemplate what it says quietly and individually, and then let's move on. --Merbabu 07:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I was making a personal attack, just commenting about the conduct of Pete's wikilawyering here and on many different articles, he could not achieve a consensus of his liking at Talk:Australia so he’s trying to find other ways to get his way. Kettle indeed. Cheers, Wiki Townsvillia n 08:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, let us all just comment on articles from now on, not editors. I think any claim to a higher ground or being 'holier than thou' can be easily shown up by others. I'm not singling any editor out, nor am I suggesting it doesn't apply to me. hence my suggestion that we all read WP:KETTLE quietly and keep all non-issue comments and thoughts to ourselves from now on. :) cheers --Merbabu 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Wiki Townsvillia n 08:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading that some are arguing royal anthems are appropriate in some places but not in others as their usage differs from country to country. I wonder, then, when is it appropriate to include a royal anthem and when is it not? I think a guideling of sorts should be established to prevent people from including or removing the royal anthem for political purposes; stating here when to include the royal anthem and when not to would minimize unnecessarily long and divisive debate on article talk pages, and hopefully lessen the chance of edit wars. --G2bambino 14:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the current guideline is sufficient. It does not mention royal anthems at all, and in general they should not be included. If they are included in some articles, that is because there is always discretion involved in applying guidelines, but I believe the guideline should not recommend their inclusion at all, leaving the onus on those who wish to include them in a specific case to say why the royal anthem is important enough to be in the infobox. JPD (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then maybe this page should make mention of that, lest people come here in future looking for some kind of guidance.

I merely thought we could establish here and now when it would be appropriate and when it would not. --G2bambino 16:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My comment was a response to the recent edits, as much as your comment. I've tried to come up with wording that spells out that there is provision in the template for more than one anthem, which shouldn't generally be used, but I can't imagine any situation where I would say including the royal anthem is appropriate. I would say it is more appropriate in Canada than Australia, but would still rather not have it in either. I don't know much about Norway, Luxembourg, Thailand and so on, but I doubt that the royal anthem is significant enough to justify an extra two lines of the infobox. JPD (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Including the royal anthem is appropriate for those nations that have one. There is no requirement for the infobox to be as short as possible - it provides an easy to read summary of information that is otherwise buried in the text of the article. Remember that we are trying to provide a resource for seekers of information, and from the point of view of a student, the fact that a nation has an alternative anthem provides colour and interest, as well as saying something about the nation. --Pete 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I too think it's appropriate to include a royal anthem if the country has one. But, then I wonder, where do we stop including information in the infobox? Canada has three flags: the Queen's Royal Standard, the Royal Union Flag, and the National Flag. Would it be prudent to include all three in the infobox? I doubt it. --G2bambino 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We're looking at an extra line for a handful of nations. I am astonished that anybody is frothing at the mouth to exclude royal anthems. --Pete 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but that doesn't answer my question of: where do we stop? Do we go so far as to include national birds, flowers, animals, and the like? I'm only asking as we'd have to draw the line somewhere; all these things would take up only one line, but add all those one lines up and the infobox starts to get very long. --G2bambino 19:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much that God Save The Queen is the royal anthem, just that for older australians (born 70's and earlier) it has been their only national anthem until 1984.Polypipe Wrangler 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peru

Peru is undergoing nomination for featured article status. Members of this wikiproject might be interested in posting a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Greetings, --Victor12 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for deletion re Palestinian Territories

I want to draw this projects attention to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories. These are highly politicised discussions and anyone who goes to these discussions will see what side I'm on and I haven't looked at who is in here and don't know what all your views are. However, I think it is important that people in WP:Countries weigh in with how you consider the Palestinian Territories should fit into your categorisation systems and that you collectively provide a substantial contribution to the debate.--Peter cohen 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Israel

I have put forth a peer review for the Israel article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Israel/archive1. Comments are welcome there (and on Talk:Israel, if you prefer). -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map is wrong

The map on the WikiProject Countries main page is wrong. Cambodia and Indonesia are featured articles but are not marked as such. Bhutan is marked as FA when it is not and Peru is marked as GA when it is a FA. --Victor12 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Its been fixed now--Astrokey44 23:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was really fast! BTW, is it really necessary to put FA and GA icons all over the map? They don't look good IMHO. --Victor12 00:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you want to include Antarctica's FA status on the map, but thought I'd bring it up in case it was overlooked. I agree with Victor12 about the icons too. Ben Tillman 05:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map needs to be updated

Russia is now a GA.--Miyokan 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

agreed, I'll see how I go about doing that.--quirellstan 19:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review for Romania

I have placed a peer review tag for the Romania article Wikipedia:Peer review/Romania/archive2. Any help is welcomed. Nergaal 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of countries

I was looking at the lists of countries by continent (eg List of African countries) and realised that it could quite easily say a lot more. So i made User:Chris_huh/List of African countries which has the capital city, flag, language, currency, gdp per capita, area and population. These are also sortable so separate lists sorted by these facts are not necessary. What do you think? C hris_huh^talk 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nepal at FAR

Nepal has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Victor12 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ulster Banner straw poll

Hello there,

A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Failed States Index rank

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the Failed States Index rank in Template:Infobox Country. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gini index

I have initiated a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Gini index in Template:Infobox Country. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Country#Proposal: Removal of Gini index. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economic data for all countries

The IMF has a database which will spit out historical GDP, inflation, etc. statistics it seems for any country. All the "Economy of X" articles should have this kind of data, from whatever the best sources are. I just added the series for Vietnam. -- Beland 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've joined your WikiProject, is there a template for my userpage? -- Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] is this project almost deat?

Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scotland peer review

Hello.

The Scotland article is up for peer review. If anyone wishes to make suggestions, they will be gratefully received. Lurker (said · done) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa at FAR

South Africa has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Victor12 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) uh wut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.146.58 (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standardising lists

Hello, I'm not sure whether the lists of countries (eg: Countries by population) are included in this project. If not, should we consider including them? And if we do, maybe we should make a standard list of countries to base it on. Because, for example, Countries by population density includes Somaliland in its list, and Countries by area doesn't. That wouldn't matter so much the lists weren't ordered, but they are. Unless anyone has any comments to the contrary, I'll add the lists to the project, then start creating a standardised list of countries. Whether to include Somaliland, Abkhazia and similar will be a matter for discussion. I think for now I'll base it largely on officially assigned ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes. Hopefully, this list will eventually be incorporated into all the country list pages. Briefplan (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think I'll make a seperate project. Wikiproject:Country lists. If anyone feels like joining, please do. Briefplan (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't feel it warrants a separate project, do continue to stand by the ISO or officially recognized lists - until Somaliland, Abkhazia, etc become recognized, they should NOT fall into such lists. Rarelibra (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries by formation dates

Hello everyone! There is a discussion at List of countries by formation dates that concernes this wikiproject. It relates to the fact that some users include former colonies (such as Algeria or Western Sahara) in the columm for the last territorial changes of their respective colonial power, and this because "formely" such colonies were considered "provinces". I believe this discussion and its result may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA team for one country?

There's been some discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop about how to increase featured article production. One suggestion that came up was to find a couple of volunteers who had plenty of experience working on FA articles, and ally them with an active team from a WikiProject that knew the content side of things and was interested in taking an article to FA. The goal would be to get another FA, help the project ramp up FA production, and discover if this is a good way of sharing skills between content editors and people who know the FA process. We have three volunteers: Awadewit, Mike Christie and Wrad.

So is anyone from this project interested in picking a country article to bring to featured level? If so, we're certainly ready to help. The things we think we can help on include:

Balance
Stylistic issues related to the manual of style, from what needs to be in the lead to how to cite to use of summary style
Copyediting
We may also be able to help with questions about how to do research and what constitutes a reliable source.

We won't know much, if anything, about the content of the particular article we'd work on. In a way that's the point of this idea -- the editors at this project presumably know and are interested in the content, which is why you're part of the project. What we think we can contribute is the other skills needed to take an article to featured level.

If you're interested, please post a response right here. The first question would be which country article to pick. Our only input there would be to avoid starting with a country that we know is likely to have some very contentious issues, such as Israel, the United States of America or Iraq. It would be better to try this idea out on a less controversial article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Haiti, Kuwait, Suriname and Yemen seem to be among the articles in the poorest shape. There is an older Wikipedia:WikiProject Yemen which might be worth contacting regarding that article, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean, Wikipedia:WikiProject Western Asia and Wikipedia:WikiProject South America, or maybe the related notice boards, would be the entities to contact regarding the first three. I don't think any of them would object to the help, although I'm not sure how many members there are to work on those articles, though. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kuwait

The article on Kuwait needs a lot attention. Somebody please help me improve it. --RajatKansal (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2 talk page templates

Hey there. May I recomend that one of the talkpage wikiproject countries templates be deleted: Template:WikiProject Countries or Template:WPCountries. I propose the former as it doesn't have a "class" parameter inbeded in it. Furthermore the later one seems to be on more talkpages. I am guessing that the second one got created accidentally after not knowing that the first one existed? Cheers.Calaka (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I am not sure if people listened to me or what, but it now appears that Template:WikiProject Countries is in no other wiki articles (I began removing a few and it seemed that someone else finished the job for me! Good stuff!)Anyway, I propose making a notice in replace of that template onto the current template page. If there are any other objections, feel free to revert and discuss your reasons here :). Cheers! Calaka (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crime and Punishment

Recently several countries are showing "crime and punishment" sections (e.g. US and Nigeria). These sections are placed under "demographics". I doubt whether that is the good position inside the article. Personally I would list such a topic under "law and justice" or a similar heading, never under demographics. Can I have your opinions; how to deal with this? Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it. "Law and justice" is too vague, I think. Rarelibra (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not attached to that header. My main problem is that punishment has nothing to do with demographics, and the relation crime<->demographics is also not so obvious Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been a tremendous discussion regarding this section of the article for some countries in Latin America. I am trying to insert a section that talks about crime in Mexico, which is at high rates, but so far I've been unsuccessful. The problem is the current editors of that Article, Mexico, most of them are mexicans who wish to create a good image of the country. The page of one of the editors for that article: User:Supaman89, reads this:

Que onda!, I'm an 18 year old Mexican citizen who's been contributing to Wikipedia for a while now, in both English and Español. I think it's been about two years since the first time registered, which by the way was in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I have to say that I've come across some really frustrating situations, which just reinforced my patriotism to this country, and made me focus on one thing... changing the wrong idea that some people have about Mexico, which most of the times doesn't even come close to how Mexico is really like.

So from his profile, it's quite clear that due to patriotism, the contents of Mexico article may be compromised. When trying to include a section about crime for that country, I was hit by extreme resistance, see discussion page [[1]]

--Mhsb (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mhsb - I went to the Mexico talk page and read through the various threads. It's a shame that such is occurring... but it seems that is the nature of wiki now. People get a small-minded approach of what they think is 'correct' and get their friends to one topic to make sure it leans their way. There are so many inconsistencies on wiki now - just recently I actually have someone telling me a lake in Switzerland goes by the French title in English (when I clearly provided many translated references to the contrary). Same thing is now occurring in the Netherlands. You and I both know, however, that if we go and try to change "Lac du Michigan" to "Lake Michigan" in French wiki, they will tell us it is French, not English. Hmmmm. So Mexicans don't want English wiki to view real Mexico with its crime and shantytowns. Nothing new. Rarelibra (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've just confirmed what I was suspecting. That's the problem with a project like that. This will only justify criticisms against the project as a whole, Criticism of Wikipedia. NPOV is being undermined by personal interests.--Mhsb (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of autonomous areas by country is up as a Featured List!

The article, List of autonomous areas by country, is currently up for nomination as a Featured List at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country. If you have the time, please vote on the article so that it can be improved if necessarily or promoted if it deserves it. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Infobox Country" on "territory" articles

What is your opinion on the Western Sahara article? Is it proper to use {{Infobox Country}} for an article on a disputed territory, tweaked to represent the territorial dispute?

Note that at Talk:Kosovo, the pro-independence crowd is pushing for a merge of the article on the disputed territory, Kosovo (region) with the article on the recently declared Republic, confusingly located at Kosovo. To concerns related to WP:NPOV, they suggest the article should have two Country Infoboxes, one for each side of the dispute. Do you have any comments on that? See Talk:Kosovo#Info_Boxes_-_The_next_step_in_our_Kosovo_Article_-_PLEASE_give_your_opinion. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Country Specific Infoboxes AGAIN

Yeap, country specific infoboxes have come up again. It's a new flavor added to an old problem that we've discussed here before. This is happening over at Talk:Wales#Info_box_color_options and you're invited. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When to include a country?

A minor issue at Edward VIII of the United Kingdom has got me wondering about format regarding countries. Namely, is it common or uncommon to include a country after the name of a state or province? For example, would one write: Los Angeles, California, United States, or simply: Los Angeles, California? Ditto for Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, or just Sydney, New South Wales. From my observations the latter is sufficient, and by far the most commonplace. However, I'd like to garner some other opinions so as to avoid problems in future. Thanks in advance. --G2bambino (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of countering systematic bias, it should be "location, country". For all countries. You never see "Munich, Bavaria" for example, so "Sydney, NSW" is out. - 52 Pickup (deal) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. --G2bambino (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Country styled

Template:Infobox Country styled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — --Jza84 | Talk 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong FAR

Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Joowwww (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NZ

Hey everyone, I was just wondering of another member of the project could take a look at the New Zealand article and give a bit of a review, not as an actaul review for GA or FA status or anything, but a pre-lim just to see what needs doing and report it back to here or my talk page just so see whats what. Cheers, Taifar ious1 05:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)