Talk:List of national capitals/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pretoria - official or administrative?

According to this article, Pretoria is the official capital of South Africa, but according to the articles Pretoria, South Africa, Cape Town and others, it's the administrative capital. Is that a mistake? 82.166.216.211 (talk) 21:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Official and administrative refer to the same city, Pretoria. It is both. Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 15:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Bonaire

Bonaire is missing from this list; you can find it on this one: List of sovereign states and dependent territories in South America. I would have done it but there isn't a template set up for it and I don't know how to do it. Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 03:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonaire is just part of the Netherlands now, so I don't think it should be included. Not that this page has a strict criteria anyway, but including Bonair would mean including the other BES islands etc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you may be right, but I suspect that if it should not be in this article, then it also should not be on the South America list, either.Jarhed (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Frech Guiana is on the South America list too, debatable here. The South America list needs something there, it can't not include an entity. You know, as somehow French Guiana is here, Bonaire can be added as long as the other BES islands are also added per BRD. Assuming no-one else chips in with an objection including an explanation for French Guiana. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

My only explanation for including Bonaire is consistency between the lists, although I see from the talk archive that exclusion and inclusion here is contentious. Given the contention, I vote for maximum inclusion in this list and let the regional lists sort out the excruciating details. This is a very useful list.Jarhed (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Berne

Since 1848, Berne is de facto, but _not_ de jure the capital of switzerland.

I haven't found any primary sources in english. berne is bundesstadt, capital (which comes from capita for "head"/"main") is never used. the german word for capital would be Hauptstadt ("Das Haupt"=The Head) - so it would be Bundeshauptstadt, but at best it's de facto Bundesstadt - but even this hasn't made it into law yet. In october 2002 the parliament put in place a "task force" which is looking for solutions to properly implement berne's status as bundesstadt, NOT bundeshauptstadt. sources: http://www.bk.admin.ch/themen/gesetz/01671/index.html?lang=de german http://www.bk.admin.ch/themen/gesetz/01671/index.html?lang=fr french http://www.bk.admin.ch/themen/gesetz/01671/index.html?lang=it italian meta-source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauptstadtfrage_der_Schweiz

and thus i propose that berne will either be removed or that notes should be added pointing this out.

if noone reacts, i will implement a solution and look forward to anyone improving it. --Nonchablunt (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Do sources explicitly state "Berne is not the de jure capital of Switzerland"? I've never heard any contention of this before - What is the bundeshauptstadt of Switzerland then? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem

Since when Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine? ..............

According to what I know Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish people 3000 years already

I just want to know if the person who wrote that Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine is anti-Semitic or that he does not read correctly the history and facts

פארוק (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Whomever did the writing has correctly noted the claims of both Israel and Palestine. Your comment is very close to being a personal attack. Beastiepaws (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

my dear friend from canada. there is no such people called "PALESTINIAN" becouse palestine is a Roman name. and jerusalem is the eternal capital of the jewish people forever and ever. פארוק (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet, the State of Palestine is recognised by quite a few nations and claims Jerusalem as its capital. Whether or not "Palestine" is a Roman name is totally irrelevant, and about as logical as saying "Zeeland is a Dutch name, so there are no New Zealanders." Beastiepaws (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because that the English people conquered New Zealand and Australia. These countries that they recognize the State of Palestine's only because apparently anti-Semitic reasons and there is no point that I will detail them here! . But it's a pure anti-Semitism because Jews were in these territories before the first arab got there. פארוק (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman people conquered Palestine. This article is about the claims made, not their validity or the motives behind them. Shouting about anti-semitism doesn't change the accuracy of this article. Please stop attacking people, and either find some evidence that the claims are wrong or otherwise improve the article. Beastiepaws (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Roman people called this land by the name "Palestine" befor the first arab came here that's all the true. פארוק (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not arguing this with you. It's not relevant to the content of the article. Beastiepaws (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes sorry to disappoint but there is no way we are removing Wellington and Canberra from the list simply because the Māori and indigenous Australians were there first and the only reason any recognises the current governments of New Zealand and Australia are because of clear racism against the Māori and indigenous Australians no matter how much פארוק may feel it's justified. (Although I have to say, I'm not sure what the English people conquering Australia has to do with the naming of New Zealand, nor whether it's a satisfactory explanation in itself for why New Zealand comes from a Dutch name but anyway....) Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Capital of Palestine?

The Palestinian Authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, and this is stated clearly in the article. However, Jerusalem is not the current capital of any state or entity apart from the State of Israel. Davshul (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I recently amended the text of this article, to show the de facto capitals of the Palestinian territories (or Palestine, as referred to in the article) as Ramallah (for the West Bank) and Gaza (for the Gaza Strip). Not only is this the actual situation, it is also consistent with the descriptions appearing elswhere on Wikipedia (for example, List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent). My changes were reversed to show Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. Whilst the Palestinians see East Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian Arab state and have declared Jerusalem to be such a capital, the article should deal with facts, nor aspirations. Jerusalem is not administered or controlled by the Palestinians and performs none of the functions of a capital city of the Palestinian Arab entity. Accordingly, it cannot be termed as their "capital". I am therefore reinstating my changes, and ask the User who reversed my changes (or anybody else) to explain how a city over which an entity has no control and which exercises none of the fuctions of a capital of the entity can be termed the entity's capital. Davshul (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A capital is, as a common argument goes, chosen by the state and not by others. If Palestine have declared Jerusalem their capital, then that's their decision. The actual place of administration is not necessarily the same as the official capital. For similar argument (although obviously not similar situation), most functions of the capital for Malaysia are carried out in Putrajaya, yet Kuala Lumpur is the official capital. It was weird that Ramallah didn't even have a mention though, which is why I added it to the note. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

my dear friend, the jewish people will never leave jerusalem. stop fighting over anti-semitic nothing. פארוק (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary, I'm afraid that isn't the case universally. In many jurisdictions where Westminster system is in place the capital is perceived to be the locale where the parliament resides (well, excluding those where just one or two meetings are held for special or emergency reasons). Wellington, Melbourne, Sydney, Edinburgh, Toronto, Vancouver, London, etc., aren't declared to be capitals. They are taken for granted as capitals. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

there is no such country PALESTINE that her capital is jerusalem - and the guy who wrote this wants to destroy the state of Israel. jerusalem is only capital for the jews, read all history and see the true. פארוק (talk) 04:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good points about Westminster, however those capitals have become the effective official capitals over time as various laws have been passed with that in mind. Most of those above, like Melbourne and Sydney, became their state capitals because they were the largest (and probably only) cities in the jurisdiction they were given. A very interesting recent capital issue was that of Libya, where the NTC, ruling from Benghazi, declared Tripoli was still the capital long before they controlled it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Palestinian authority sees East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine (last sentence in the Permanent Observer mission of Palestine, that's what they continuously declared. I think this must be reflected somehow in the article by either putting Jerusalem (east) or East Jerusalem. That would be more accurate than just Jerusalem, this applies to the article about Palestine (state) as well. Tachfin (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Canary Country

I have added to Canary since Canary this considered one an autonomy beyond other that belong to españa, is a case similar to the agreement of the commonwealth. Here I leave you a page that confirms it. http://www.kftc.org/our-work/canary-project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenerifecanarias (talk • contribs) 19:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

All regions of Spain are considered Autonomous communities (other than the plazas etc.), and that source is at first glance completely unrelated. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Burma

Messed up!!! Egypt is under Burma!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.117.223 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Nanking

I know the claim has not been actively pursued for decades. But still the claim has never been dropped. Should it be listed in some way? 119.237.156.46 (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

No it shouldnt, it was capital at several times in china's history, but its not now.Millertime246 (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The Taipei govt calls Nanking as its capital. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Palau

Hi again. The capital is listed as Melekeok, which is described here as a state. The capital is listed as Ngerulmud.

--Brettreasure (talk) 15:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Many sources, like the world factbook, list the capital as Melekeok. CMD (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've messed this up - can someone fix ? SulacLarice (talk)

List of capitals by continent/region

I came to wikipedia specifically looking for a list of capitals by region. There's such a list for South America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_American_capital_cities) but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Capitals directed me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capitals_by_country#By_continent

Which is exactly what i wanted, but apparently that page has been deleted and redirected to here, which does _not_ allow you to sort by geography, and the old page was deleted under the theory that this one is sufficient.

Well in order to be sufficient it either needs an extra column added for "Continent" or "Region" so it can be sorted on that, or it needs a separate section with a list for each continent/region. Deleting pages with useful information and redirecting to pages with _less_ information is not helping anybody.

Daetrin (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The lists of countries per continent (Europe, North America, Asia, ...) include the capitals. SiBr₄ (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

east jerusalem

According to this BBC article, the EU "dropped an earlier reference stating explicitly that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a Palestinian state" and said that Jerusalem should be the capital of both states, whatever that means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It means that they are subtly implying recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. As the article said, a balancing. CMD (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Taipei listed in bold?

Taiwan is listed in bold (suggesting sovereign state). "Taiwan, Province of China" (to use ISO terminology) is a place whose sovereignty is certainly disputed. It has far less international recognition than Kosovo another place whose status is disputed. Why is it listed in bold? Are we being objective, consistent? Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ascension Island be shown as a British Overseas Territory?

"It is governed as part of the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha". Saint Helena and Tristan da Cunha are listed in the article as British Overseas Territories. Brettreasure (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha are one British Overseas Territory together, as the sentence you quoted from the Ascension Island article says. A note like "Part of the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha" could be added to each island, or only the entire territory of SH,A&TdC could be shown (with Jamestown as its capital) SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are Belfast, Cardiff & Edinburgh listed?

Above is the question. They are not sovereign states or territories either (i.e. they don't make it on the ISO 3166-1 list). Is their inclusion justified? If so, on what basis? If they are included, surely the capitals of Russian and US and Australian States, Canadian Provinces, States within the FSM etc could be listed? The list would grow very long Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC) it takes about a milliom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.241.15 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Column for continent

I'd suggest to add an additional column in which we denote to which continent the respective state belongs. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What for, and what would we do with transcontinental states (presumably using the 7-continent model)? CMD (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

We just take the continent of the capital. --Jobu0101 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

China

The mention of Nanjing as Capital contradict the China article mentioning Beijing 84.73.175.82 (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Caused by this wrong edit three days ago. Reverted it. SiBr₄ (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Valparaíso

No one calls Valparaíso the legislative capital of Chile. It's simply the city where the parliament is located. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does this even exist?

Why do we have like six different articles listing national capitals in various different orders when one sortable list would do the job of all of them? john k (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this should be deleted. Not only that, there is a very, very loose definition of "nation" being used. Mattximus (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Macau

Shouldn't Macau be listed in this page? Hong Kong is in, so why not Macau?Cazaux (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

We should clarify and modify how countries qualify for bold

The intro text says that countries are shown in bold if they are "sovereign" or if they have observer status at the UN. Whose definition of "sovereign" is being used? And what is the reason that observer status at the UN is given such high regard. It seems strange that a self-governing region with its own recognized passports, independent military in a hostile region, own currency, foreign relations, and government that does not answer to any other like Taiwan is not bolded while the State of Palestine which does not control its territory is bolded. I suggest we use criteria that leaves no room for arguing and that leads to less inconsistency. For example we could only bold countries that participate as full members in the UN General Assembly. That would unfortunately leave out sovereign Taiwan but it would be less likely to pick up non-sovereign countries and would be less subjective. Readin (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the idea is to follow the List of sovereign states classification with 193 UN member states and two observer states as the main group. That leaves Taiwan out. --T*U (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone just bolded every entry. TdanTce (talk) 19:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bolding them all is weird, since it calls too much attention to the Country column, when the article is supposed to be about capitals. I say we take the egalitarian route and unbold everything in the table. Phlar (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

UK

Should or should not England (London), Wales (Cardiff), Scotland (Edinburgh) and Northern Ireland (Belfast) be included in this list? -- SGBailey (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for such a comprehensive listing :)

Brettreasure (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of national capitals in alphabetical order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924055432/http://www.oic-oci.org/english/conf/fm/18/18%20icfm-political-en.htm to http://www.oic-oci.org/english/conf/fm/18/18%20icfm-political-en.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/111833.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

After the AFD and DRV

After the AFD and the Deletion Review about the AFD, what now? Given those discussions, there could be uncertainty about where this list-article's fate should be further discussed, e.g. perhaps in a new AFD. But I have just wp:BOLDly overturned the decision of the AFD and restored this article here. I hope no one wants to insist upon a different venue; any discussion or review venue could be opposed on technicalicaties; this Talk page seems the most natural to me.

Anyhow, if we can continue here, what to do now? It is my sense that the fundamental consensus is that this list-article should be further developed, and it should be moved back to List of national capitals (over a redirect), reversing the 2012 move which put this at a silly-sounding name, leaving it a target for deletion. Other (newer) lists of capitals could possibly be merged into this one. So there could be merger discussions, which I suggest should take place in sections here with notices posted at their Talk pages. Is it necessary to have a new Requested Move discussion? I may try to get the move done as a Technical request at wp:RM, implementing what I believe is the sense of the AFD and DRV discussions. I will pause for comments, and expect then to request that the move be implemented. --Doncram (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

List of countries and capitals with currency and language listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of countries and capitals with currency and language. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

United Kingdom

This listing includes other countries within another kingdom, e.g. Greenland and Faeroe Island (within kingdom of Denmark), and Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten (in the Kingdom of Netherlands). Why does it not includes the countries within the United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, all of which are officially countries, all of which have their own capitals and parliament? Ptilinopus (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Note:

• The phrase "officially countries" is meaningless. Official according to who?
• The countries of the UK do not all have their own parliaments. Scotland has a parliament, Wales and Northern Ireland have assemblies and England has neither. (OTOH all of the Länder - i.e. countries - of Germany do have their own parliaments.)
• This list does need an explicitly-declared inclusion criterion, but it appears to use ISO 3166-1 plus states with limited recognition, which is a good and basically neutral standard. (Though just going for the List of sovereign states might be a better one in this context.)
• Including entities not on that list based solely on the terminology used to describe them is systematic bias and therefore violates WP:NPOV. Kahastok talk 22:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Fair points. As to the first, refer to the Wikipedia article on the United Kingdom, which states the UK to be composed of the four countries. To equate German Länder to countries is invalid in English. No English language source that I have seen refers to the Länder as countries, but as states. Inclusion criteria are certainly needed. A bias I perceive is the inclusion of entities that are separated by sea from the actual country, even though they are territories with no real separate aspirations. Examples include Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands, all governed by Australia, and which have less local government than the Australian (mainland) states. Or the various overseas collectivities of France. Then there is Hong Kong and Macau - hardly countries, since the are part of China, whatever their special status. More cases are regions with no permanent inhabitants such as South Georgia & the South Sandwich Is. How do British military bases in Cyprus qualify as countries (Akrotiri and Dhekelia)? So yes, let’s have some clear criteria! Ptilinopus (talk) 04:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Allowing English sources but not non-English sources is clear systematic bias. Also there are plenty of places described as "country" in English that clearly do not belong on this list.

I have added an inclusion criterion based on what I understand the current rule to be. Norfolk Island, Hong Kong et al are thus now included because they are on ISO 3166-1. I think reducing this to include only entities listed by the List of sovereign states would be appropriate because I think that would more closely match what people would understand by "national capital", but I don't have time to do that now. Kahastok talk 18:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No-one said anything about English or non-English sources. I referred to translation, where you equate Länder to countries. This is the English page and English language conventions are not bias. One might equally speak of translation bias! One might compare UK with Australia - no-one says the states of Australia are countries (at least not in English! Perhaps German might call them Länder?) Whereas the 4 constituents of the UK are called countries in English.

It would certainly be of advantage to define national capital more accurately. For a number of the entities, they are not nations, and the "capital" is just the main town or settlement. Ptilinopus (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

It has been proposed (and included now in the introduction to the article) that the criteria for inclusion be "states or territories listed by the international standard ISO 3166-1, or that are included in the List of states with limited recognition." I would suggest that this needs a lot more study. On the ISO 3166-1 the following are listed, which are not included in the article: Åland Islands; Antarctica; Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba; Bouvet Island; British Indian Ocean Territory; French Guiana; French Southern Territories; Guadeloupe; Heard and McDonald Islands; Martinique; Mayotte; Réunion; Svalbard and Jan Mayen; United States Outlying Territories. In addition, the following are listed in the article which fit none of the stated criteria, neither ISO 3166-1, nor states of limited recognition list: Aktrotiri and Dhekela; Easter Island; Northern Cyprus; Syrian opposition; Transnistria.

Of the above, some ISO 3166-1 entities are certainly not countries in any sense - Antarctica, Bouvet Island, French Southern Territories; Heard and McDonald Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands; and the US Outlying Islands territories: they are uninhabited other that scientific or other non-permanent groups. In the case of the British Indian Ocean Territory, though it has no permanent population now, it did have a population that has been evicted. In the case of Svalbard and Jan Mayen; the BES islands; French Guiana; Guadeloupe; Martinique; Mayotte; Réunion; St Barthelemy; St Martin, these are all integrated parts of another country. On the other hand, Åland Islands might claim at least as much inclusion as Norfolk Island, and certainly more than South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands!

It seems to me that the blanket use of ISO 3166-1 and the list of states of limited recognition is not sufficiently valid. Better definition is required. I would suggest as a starting point, that the countries concerned be as a minimum: 1) inhabited by a permanent general population, 2) have some form of central government, 3) have a designated capital (not simply the largest settlement), and 4) not be incorporated within another country. Others may come up with better criteria. Ptilinopus (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem with such a criterion is twofold:

• WP:NOR. There are a lot of edge cases and it can be difficult and controversial to decide what exactly "incorporated within another country" means in some cases.
• It reinvents the wheel. We already make these sorts of decisions for similar articles elsewhere, and given how controversial it can be there's little benefit in creating new ones from scratch.

As I indicated above, my preference would be to use the List of sovereign states, as I rather agree that several of the entries on ISO 3166-1 are difficult to justify on this list.

(FWIW Transnistria is listed at the list of states with limited recognition as "Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic",because that article appears to use formal names rather than common names.) Kahastok talk 14:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of seats of government outside of a country's main capital

I don't think that this edit should have been made. This article is about capitals, not only official capitals. The cities that were removed were all seats of government institutions and unlike the rest of the article, were all sourced. They were also in italics to differentiate them from official capitals. The article is more complete when all seats of government are included. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

They are all places where there are government institutions, they were sourced—and they meet what seems to be your personal definition of "capital" (and your personal expression "seats of government institutions"), but not any generally accepted definition. In addition, your sources didn't say these cities are capitals. That's your own synthesis.

Following your rationale as stated here, we'd be calling half the localities within 30 miles of Washington, D.C. "capitals" because some U.S. office or other is located in each of them. This is not "List of localities where a nation has at least one of its institutional headquarters". Largoplazo (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Largoplazo The definition of "capital" is "the seat of government" or "where the government operates from". Those definitions fit for these cities because certain parts of their countries' governments have their seats there. Also, as I said, I had put unofficial capitals in italics to differentiate them from official capitals. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You've basically just repeated what you said in your first comment, and I've already responded. But I'll elaborate further:

• Your understanding of these definitions to mean, as I infer it, "Any locality where a nation has at least one of its institutional headquarters" is not likely to find much agreement.
• I think people in a number of the cities you added would be surprised that anyone thought of them as a "capital" of their country.
• If there were a generally sense that Erfurt, Karlsruhe, Leipzig, Bellinzona, Pasay, etc., were capitals of their respective countries, isn't it odd that none of the people who've edited the articles about those places on Wikipedia ever thought to mention their status as national capitals there?
• The fact that you put them in italics is pretty much an acknowledgement that you weren't following generally accepted convention regarding the capitals of the countries involved.

I believe it's unlikely that you'll find reliable sources that identify those locations as capitals of their respective nations, or consensus for your changes. Largoplazo (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: They still fit the definition because they are seats of government. Also, what makes places like Valparaíso qualify for this list while others don't? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

That they are "seats of government" is also you're own opinion, and that they are capitals is your own opinion. Again: WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. I didn't see that you supplied a single source such as I said would be required. You didn't wait to see if you could obtain a consensus. I've reverted your latest addition.

Elaborating on an earlier comment of mine, by your logic we would have to include for the United States all the locations in Virgina and Maryland that have some Federal headquarters in them: the Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, Maryland), the National Security Agency (Fort Meade, Maryland), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Gaithersburg, Maryland), the Patent and Trademark Office (Alexandria, Virginia), the Social Security Administration (Woodlawn, Maryland), the Census Bureau (Suitland, Maryland), and so on and so forth. Do you think anyone generally considers those to be capitals? Largoplazo (talk) 11:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: You obviously have more authority over this page than I do, so I don't want to waste my time arguing what the definition of "capital" or "seat of government" is. That's why I moved the information to the notes column. Nothing that I wrote there was incorrect. It's a fact that these cities house government institutions. Having information like that in the notes column only makes the list more accurate. That's what the notes column is for. Not putting anything there makes it sound like every government institution is located in the city that's listed. I understand your point about how having to add all of the cities in the Washington, D.C. area that have government offices in them seems excessive, but it's more important to have all of the information listed than to have the list be short. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't have "more authority" than you. I followed WP:BRD, noted problems with your edits in the context of Wikipedia's guidelines, but also said, instead of concluding right away that "this cannot be", that you ought to get consensus, which is the opposite of saying "I have more authority than you".

However, I took another look just now at your revised contribution. I still have concerns about it, and you ought not to have put it up unilaterally rather than proposing it here first, the discussion having been initiated. But even though I think it's overkill and can open a can of words, in the state that it's in it seems innocuous enough and I've restored it. I would still like others to comment on your content. Largoplazo (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

No consensus to change the article's scope, and we cannot make it seem if there would be more capitals of equal status, status has to be indicated immediately.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I put the cities that I added into the notes column to differentiate them from the others. What other issues do you have with the edit? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't think an italic and a late explanation in the description is sufficient. This form, when in brackets immediately shown the status is more favorable, this is the main thing.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: The italics are there to indicate that the city isn't officially designated as the capital in the country's constitution, so they technically do have a different status from official capitals. As for the explanation for the italics, it was only the fourth paragraph, so it isn't that far down. On top of that, it was written right after the explanation for United Nations member states being in bold. Where else should it have gone? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The fact you know what italics would indicate does not mean it is clear to others as well, similarly if the reader only afterwards will know what is really a capital by explanation, hence I support the current version, where status is clearly written at each instance immediately.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Would you be okay with reverting to the previous version but removing the italics? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

But then also the de facto/de jure designations would disappear...as a compromise, it would be ok if you remove italics, you remove de jure, but not to remove de facto, so the reader has a clear infromation of the status at the first glance.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: How about moving the de facto designation to the notes column so the table looks more neat? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

What I am telling from beginning, the first columnt cannot be left without explanation at those instances that are not official capitals, shall it be de facto, judicial or any other parameter, so this is not a solution. Another solution may be, that the table's first column would be the respective countries, and after the capitals, so there the designation could bother you less, but this case would be as well necessary (though in such case the italic solution I see viable).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC))

Maybe at this point, with only three people in the discussion, we should leave out anything that isn't about capitals based on what reliable sources call capitals, and without feeling the need to point out every time an arbitrary government building is located somewhere other than in one of them. (Once again, see my exposition on Washington, D.C., above.) It's almost as though we're trying to show how clever we are rather than just providing the information that the title of the article says will be included here and letting it go at that.

In addition, it occurs to me that if more detail than the answer to the question "What is the capital?" is to be offered about a country, then that information will be found in the articles on that country and/or that capital, and we really don't need to cover them also in this simple list article. Largoplazo (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I wasn't trying to look "clever," I was just adding missing information that I thought should be on the list and was doing so in good faith. If that information doesn't belong on this article, does the existence of cities with government institutions that aren't capitals warrant the creation of a second article (something along the lines of List of cities that house government institutions)? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't describing your intent, but the way it comes across, as I discussed above when talking about original research and synthesis. Largoplazo (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: What are your thoughts on creating a second article? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It would have to meet WP:LISTN. Also, see WP:LISTCRUFT. Largoplazo (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Do you think it would fit better in List of countries with multiple capitals#Other countries or as its own article? -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

You aren't picking up from my repeated mentions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS, supplemented now by WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRUFT, that I'm not a big fan of including it at all. Largoplazo (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Putting it in List of countries with multiple capitals#Other countries as opposed to List of countries with multiple capitals#More than one capital at present or a new article would solve all of those issues. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It would be no less WP:OR/WP:SYNTHESIS by you there than here. Largoplazo (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: Why would it be original research and synthesis if it's in List of countries with multiple capitals#Other countries instead of List of countries with multiple capitals#More than one capital at present? The "More than one capital at present" sections seems to be for places generally regarded as capitals while the "Other countries" section seems to be for other instances. In fact, that seems to be what the article implies when it says "There are also cases where there is a single legally defined capital, but one or more other cities operate as the seat of government of some or all parts of the national government. While such cases are arguably not technically multiple capitals, the situation is similar; so they are included in this list." -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

My previous comments already answer this. I'm done repeating myself. Largoplazo (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo: I don't know what you think I'm missing. I've already addressed that it's a fact, not original research or my own synthesis that these places do house government institutions. I'm not even trying to argue that these places are capitals anymore. That's why I'm trying to put it in List of countries with multiple capitals#Other countries. However, you ignored what I said about that in my previous comment. -- ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

@Largoplazo:, yes it may be a solution, this article should be dedicated for official(ly recognized) capitals, while the multiple capitals article (though even the title is misleading in a way, regardless of the explanation in the lead) should deal with seats of important government organizations, or "honorary capitals", etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2020 (UTC))

"These current countries have had two cities that served as administrative capitals at the same time, for various reasons such as war, weather or partition. In some cases, the second capital is considered a temporary capital." This isn't an invitation to add any city some Wikipedian might like to deem a capital based on a WP:SYNTHESIS of their own understanding of what determines that a city is a capital, without regard to whether anyone has ever designated it a capital. A city is a capital if reliable sources say so. Largoplazo (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

European Union

I think that the list should include the European Union, the capital city of which is Brussels. --RaiBrown1204 (talk) 01:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a list of national capitals, the EU is not a nation, and it has no designated capital, no. Largoplazo (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom

State: a government which controls a specific territory, which may or may not be associated with any particular ethnic group - "The recognition of a state presupposes that it actually has the characteristics of a state in the sense of international law. According to the prevailing three-element doctrine, this requires a state territory, a state people and a state power (i.e. an effective and independent government both externally and internally as an expression of state sovereignty). Only the actual circumstances are decisive for the assessment of the quality of the state ("principle of effectiveness"). If a state is recognised before all the conditions are met (premature recognition), this is contrary to international law and has no legal effect. The state that makes a premature recognition violates the prohibition of interference in the internal affairs of a state (Art. 2 No. 4 of the UN Charter)."

Nation: A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usu. constituting a political entity. - When a nation is coincident with a state, the term nation-state is often used. Or might happen to be: A community of people inhabiting a defined territory and organized under an independent government; a sovereign political state (see above).

Now that the terminology according to international law (jus gentium) has been clarified:

List of National Capitals is not the same as List of State Capitals.

Scotland & Wales: recognized as a Nation internationally and by governing state -> List of National Capitals: Cardiff & Edinburgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lssa1310 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article has clear inclusion criteria, which are ISO 3166-1 and List of states with limited recognition. This is preferable to a criteria based on wp:original research and individual interpretations of certain words. CMD (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is policy is quite clear that inclusion criteria define a list, and these criteria are good ones.

FWIW I would read "List of state capitals" as a US-centric name for the list of US state capitals. Kahastok talk 19:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the above. The inclusion criteria is clear for this list. No subdivisions of countries are included unless they're dependencies regarded as separate/distinct enough to have their own ISO 3166-1 codes (and top level domains, etc.). It's not up to editors here to decide that certain subnational divisions are particularly unique or not compared to all the others. If/when Scotland is an independent nation again it'll belong on this list. ҉ Randwicked ҉ 06:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Benin

Is Porto-Novo out of alphabetical sequence intentionally? Because that position doesn't match its official French name, or its translated English names, or either of its unofficial aliases (aliai?). CaptHayfever (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's weird. I'd understood decades ago that the capital had been changed to Cotonou, which is what would belong in that spot alphabetically. Now this list and the Cotonou article tell me that though the government operates out of Cotonou, Porto-Novo remains the official capital.

So if it's Porto-Novo, yes, it should be moved, but since I'm perplexed I'll leave it to someone else to do, after reassuring us that I and all the sources I was getting my information from years ago were all wrong about the capital moving to Cotonou. Largoplazo (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's in the proper place if Cotonou is included in the list, which is probably should be. It appears that while Porto-Novo is the de jure capital of Benin, Cotonou is the de facto capital...similar to the situation in the Netherlands with Amsterdam and The Hague. So Cotonou should probably be added back in. Coulraphobic123 (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

United States

I think that "Washington D.C." should be changed to just "Washington". The capital of the United States is Washington, and D.C. stands for the District of Columbia, which is the federal district that the capital is in. If you're talking about the capital of North Dakota, you wouldn't call it "Bismarck, N.D.", you would just call it "Bismarck". (This is my first time making any edits, so I'm sorry if I'm not doing this right.)--angryfishstick1 (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You did this just fine!

You make a perfectly good point. I can also understand the sense that "D.C." is particularly closely tied to the name of the capital, at least from my point of view as an American and as a resident of the D.C. area. Perhaps it's in part because we're so used to distinguishing it from "Washington state". But I have to acknowledge that Americans who aren't from the D.C. area might see it differently. See, for example, how I keep writing "the D.C. area". I believe it's much more customary around here to refer to it as "D.C." or "the District" then as "Washington"! And then there's the rest of the world, where people perhaps know it only as "Washington" and never think of the "D.C." part of it. That has to be taken into account.

I'm wondering how the question would have been answered in the early 19th century, when Washington wasn't coterminous with the District of Columbia. At one point, the District consisted of Washington County, Alexandria County (returned to Virginia in 1847), and the cities of Washington and Georgetown. Was the capital technically Washington, or was it the District of Columbia? I'm also wondering whether that has any bearing on the question as asked today. Largoplazo (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've actually just found out that, from the looks of it, the "City of Washington" isn't really a thing anymore. The article for the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 states that the act repealed the charters of Washington and Georgetown to create a single district there, so I guess that technically makes the District of Columbia the capital of the United States. I'd now argue that it should be called the "District of Columbia" or "D.C." rather than "Washington." angryfishstick1 (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Capitals of UK constituent countries

Besides London (whole of UK and England), could Cardiff (Wales), Edinburgh (Scotland) and Belfast (Northern Ireland) be included? Anamyd (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That would greatly widen the scope of this list. CMD (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorting the table

The capitals column sorts ok but the country doesn’t. Possible because of the presence of state flags which have some numerical value. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

India's Capital

It's capital is New Delhi. Rudranandcrazy (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

And the article says that. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Antigua has no capital?

Is there a source for the note next to Antigua & Barbuda saying that it doesn't have a capital? I have seen doesn't mention that at all and the CIA's website doesn't say anything like that either - https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/antigua-and-barbuda/#government. Wkpdsrnm2023 (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's nonsense. While some countries do officially declare a city to be their capital, the definition of "capital city" doesn't require such a formal designation, only that the city be the seat of government, which is a factual matter that stands with or without official acknowledgement. St. John's is the capital of Antigua and Barbuda because it's the seat of the country's government, and there isn't any reason to make a show out of saying it's de facto. Largoplazo (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I'd caveat that the definition does suggest there be non-capital locations, but I agree the legal wrangling is nonsense. CMD (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)