Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Countries (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Discussion about article "Constituent state"Edit

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Constituent state#Merger proposal, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. --Heanor (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Handling linking to historic countriesEdit

"Do we really need to say Courland Governorate, Russian Empire? We don't say, e.g. Nigeria Colony, British Empire do we? If people want to know more, it is only a click away. Another point is that I always pipe links to the Russian Empire as Russia, per COMMONNAME. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Mjroots - I would be more than happy with Courland Governorate, Russia. My only concern is not to leave readers with only an obscure indication of locale with no indication of what country it is in (between Riga and Hull there are many possibilities).Davidships (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, tricky on this. We don't say "Egypt Eyalet, Ottoman Empire", do we? - I just use Egypt. I think this probably needs a discussion at Wikiproject level. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)"

The edit that sparked the discussion was this. So, the question is how should we handle linking to historic countries. The Egypt example above is one of many Eyalets, Vilayets, and Khedivates of the Ottoman Empire. My preference is that COMMONNAME is adhered to unless there is a strong reason to deviate (Dominion of Canada, Union of South Africa). If readers want to know more, the info is a mere click away. Mjroots (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a COMMONNAME issue, as it's about describing a location not naming it. Whether to attach the larger country to a subdivision is an editorial choice. What I would say is that the page should be consistent. The page in question doesn't seem to have a consistent standard, sometimes just naming a town, sometimes naming a region ("The ship was driven ashore and wrecked at Mont-Saint-Michel, Manche"), and sometimes the country ("The schooner was wrecked on Scroby Sands, Norfolk, United Kingdom") or country-ish level colony ("The ship departed from Saint John's, Newfoundland, British North America"). CMD (talk) 09:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: - with France, locations are given in the format of "location, department" where the date is post-1790. British North America is linked where that is the appropriate name for the area in question at the time in question - an importan principle is not to rewrite history. Where a ship is lost at a location different to its flag country, the the name of the country is given, unless it has already been established where that location is. The Courland Governorate had a different flag to the Russian Empire. Whereas the Grand Duchy of Finland used the same flag as the Russian Empire, but I've not seen it suggested that we write "Grand Duchy of Finland, Russian Empire". Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
My own underlying view is is that what readers would want to know for a shipwreck is what the ship was (eg name, nationality and type), where it happened (ie geographical location), and something about what happened (on the day and eventually); to me, the geopolitics of the nearby coastline is not a priority. The entries on these pages are intentionally brief summaries of events. If I were writing this entry, I would have written "...Domesnes, Riga Bay. She was on a voyage from Riga, Russia to Hull, England." My reason for not doing so is that these shipwreck articles exist largely due to the prodigious dedication of, in particular, Mjroots and so I try to follow his approach as best as I can. It may be that WT:GEOG would also have views on this. Davidships (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
WT:GEOG notified. Mjroots (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It is important to link to the country at the right period in its history e.g. to link to the Electorate of Bavaria if the date falls within the period 1623 to 1805 and not to Bavaria. However, we can always pipe it by typing e.g. [[Electorate of Bavaria|Bavaria]] if the full title seems unwieldy or awkward. Bermicourt (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


Think we should work on this article together Ukraine ...needs lots of care. As of now its full of unsourced info and full of excerpts that dont allow us to monitor changes to the article and has many subpart references we normally dont use in country articles. Best get as many eyes on this considering whats going on.--Moxy-  17:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for ChadEdit

I have nominated Chad for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)