hey, this is neat. My one suggestion would be to nix the TOC at the top-- I dont think it adds much since most people know the order things will be in (B will be at the top, M in the middle, and Y towards the end etc) and it pushes the actual content pretty far down. What do you think? --Maj
Should this be renamed 'List of countries and territories' or something similar?. Many of the places listed are not sovereign nation states, and any other definition of 'country' is a bit vague. And I wouldn't want to see the PRC invade Wikitravel over its description of Hong Kong and Taiwan as countries :-). -- Chris j wood 11:01, 6 Aug 2004 (EDT)
- Yes, it's vague, but try Wikitravel:geographical hierarchy#countries.
- Taiwan is listed as a country since, for travelers, it is. See Talk:China for more info.
- As to changing the name: I don't think being over-exact has ever helped anyone. --Evan 11:23, 6 Aug 2004 (EDT)
Do we need this "List of .. "
I don't think we need this list anymore since we have a good geographical hierarchy. -- Mark 05:04, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I think it's handy as a reference. I used this as the baselist when composing the country list for ja:, and it made sure that the coverage was identical to en and that all CIA World Factbook entries were covered. Jpatokal 05:21, 7 Feb 2006 (EST)
- I don't think we need this list either. We have a good set of hierarchy as of now. Also, all the Factbook entries have now been dealt with. --globe-trotter 12:29, 21 February 2010 (EST)
- See Vfd#List_of_Brazilian_states. --Peter Talk 12:39, 21 February 2010 (EST)
England, Scotland, Wales - countries or "home nations" within the UK?
A user has changed references to "country" in Scotland, etc, to say "home nations" instead, reasonably enough saying that they don't appear on this listing of countries but are lumped into the UK. Any opinions on this? I can see the logic, but I feel the reality is that they each have their own character much as Norway and Sweden differ from each other, and that residents think of them as countries in their own right. I'm not sure of the objective perspective of the traveller - so which should they be? Andyfarrell 18:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)
- I made those changes, subsequent to this and this. I think the "logic" is strong and the "reality" weak, but I have no problem with them being in or out, as long as they are all in or all out. ~ 18.104.22.168 01:45, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- I also have no problem with listing them as countries, since we're already using the ghastly quickbars for them. And "country" is a real political fudge of a term in any rate, one which we've embraced with "countries" like Hong Kong and [grin] Heard Island and McDonald Islands. --Peter Talk 02:24, 19 December 2007 (EST)
- Someone just added Wales, again *sigh* . Could we try to work out a consensus on this? Sertmann 21:53, 3 November 2008 (EST)
- Well, I am from Wales and personally do not believe they should be added for the following two reasons: 1. It would open a can of worms. Many (most?) countries are an amalgamation of historical kingdoms, and places like China have provinces with populations over 50 or 60 million that have their own languages and culture. Adding the historical kingdoms of the UK would open the door to a flood of similar regions (such as those in China) being added. 2. It may lead travelers to believe that these areas operate their own visa rules and border controls, which they do not. In this respect, adding these places will contradict the stalwart 'first amendment of WT' - 'The traveller comes first'. To solve the problem I suggest that 'countries' are defined as places with a head of state. This will exclude historical kingdoms, but allow disputed regions, such as Taiwan to be included. Frequenttrekker 23:18, 3 November 2008 (EST)