Talk:United Nations Industrial Development Organization/Archive 1

Archive 1

Dairy in North Korea

Swedish radio reports on January 18, 2007, how UNIDO has sponsored a dairy plant in "Samdoc" (?), North Korea, where the equipment can process 24,000 litres/day of milk that isn't available, and requires 70 kW of electric power that can't be supplied. --LA2 16:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Unido logo.png

Image:Unido logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Membership lists

UNIDO renamed the lists of members to A/B/C/D, but I can't find the old names or the criteria used by UNIDO for classifying states between the lists. Same for former members. Currently the article has a 'cfact' template that shows that a particular part of a sentence needs citation (the obvious common denominator between the states). Until we find such sources I propose those tags to remain. Alinor (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The common denominator was the developing/developed/transition economy type, but was deleted recently from the article. [1]

I think we should provide context information about what consequences the "list A/B/C/D" membership has and/or what criteria are used to sort the states. Alinor (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Like for IFAD similar lists. Alinor (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I find the new descriptions based purely on geographical grounds (with notes like "Asia excluding Japan" and "Western Europe including Japan") equally bad if not worse than the previous economic-related ones. Both are unsourced, but these are also not properly describing the groups (that's why such special notes are needed). Also, I doubt that if this was a purely geographical division new members would have to wait to be assigned. Also, if the division was based on UN groupings like "Western Europe and Others Group" (that nearly match one of the lists here) there wouldn't be new members waiting to be assigned - they will just go to their group. Alinor (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "both are unsourced"? Both are technical descriptions of the lists, rather than essential ones, i.e. both descriptions are not intended to describe UN formal criteria for a given country to be included in a given list, but rather are intended to let the Wikipedian know, technically (rather than essentially), which UNIDO member belongs to a given list, so I don't see here any ground for considering those descriptions as "dubious".

Technically speaking, the previous economic related description, doesn't let you know exactly which UNIDO member belongs to a given list, whereas the geographical description, e.g. "Oceania excluding New Zealand", and likewise, is far better, because it's accurate, i.e. it lets you know exactly which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.

Eliko (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

By both I mean - "geographical" and "economical" descriptions.

There is no use in describing the list like "Europe, but without France, and with Brazil" - this may be technically correct, but makes no sense and adds no value to the article. This is arbitrary way of listing the countries with minimum words. It is better to just list the states instead - so it shows "exactly which country belongs".

We already have a map showing the countries, it is easy to see which country belongs where. What is missing is the reason WHY a country is there. The "economical" descriptions included geographical references as well and were without special notes of inclusion/exclusion (e.g. exceptions). The fact that exception-notes are required (for the "geographical" descriptions) means that they are incorrect/do not show the real cause-effect link. Alinor (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "By both I mean - 'geographical' and 'economical' descriptions". Of course, I knew that, and my question was only about their being "unsourced". Both descriptions were technical only, rather than essential, so their being unsourced doesn't matter.
• "Describing the list like 'Europe, but without France, and with Brazil'...may be technically correct". I agree.
• "This is arbitrary way of listing the countries with minimum words". I agree, except for the word "arbitrary". The geographical description is the shortest most compact textual way of listing the countries on a given list with minimum words, so it's not arbitrary. Being the shortest (or the longest, or the happiest, and the like), is never an arbitrary property, from a technical (and logical) point of view. Do you know of any shorter compact way of listing the countries in a given list with minimum words?
• "What is missing is the reason WHY a country is there". I agree. It's missing, and unfortunately, nobody can answer the question WHY, as yet. Anyway, it doesn't matter as much, because the geographical description is not intended to answer the question WHY, but rather to give the reader the shortest most compact textual way for knowing which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.
• "It is better to just list the states instead". I don't agree, because listing the states is not the shortest most compact textual way for letting the reader know which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.
• "We already have a map showing the countries, it is easy to see which country belongs where". Yes, it is easy, but Wikipedia is primarily a textual instrument, rather than a visual one. We need both the map and the text. The text must be compact, because this is an encyclopedia, rather than a novel.
• "There is no use in describing the list like 'Europe, but without France, and with Brazil' - this...makes no sense and adds no value to the article". If such a description had been the shortest most compact textual way for describing the list, then Wikipedia should have used it, because such descriptions are intended to give the reader the shortest most compact textual way for knowing which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.
• "The 'economical' descriptions included geographical references as well, and were without special notes of inclusion/exclusion (e.g. exceptions)". I agree, but the 'economical' description doesn't let the reader know which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.
• "The fact that exception-notes are required (for the'"geographical' descriptions) means that they are incorrect". What do you mean by "incorrect"?
• "The fact that exception-notes are required (for the 'geographical' descriptions) means that they...do not show the real cause-effect link". I agree that they do not show that, but they are not intended to show that. They are only intended to give the reader the shortest most compact textual way for knowing which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.

Eliko (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The initial descriptions are not so different from the current (they also include the geographical reference) - the difference is that instead of "exclusion" notes they utilized developed/developing/transition economy (with links to the respective articles). This works very well especially for List B, that has no geographical roots, but has members from all around the world (if you insist we can add a note in brackets about "mostly from Europe" or similar). Alinor (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• The initial descriptions doesn't let the reader know which UNIDO member belongs to a given list, because there are developing countries that belong to list B (e.g. Turkey), while there are developed countries that belong to list D (e.g. Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia) and to list A (e.g. Israel and South Korea).
• Additionally, if the criterion had been economical, there would have been no justification for separating list A from list C.Eliko (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The purely geographical descriptions also "doesn't let the reader know which UNIDO member belongs to a given list", because depending on definition Latin America can include or not include Caribbean, Central and Eastern Europe can include or not include Russia, etc. The only way to see EXACTLY which country belongs where is to list all countries.

Nobody argues that the criteria is ONLY economical, that's why the initial criteria include both economical and geographical references.

So, the disadvantage is shared by both descriptions, but the economical+geographical is giving additional information and more importantly doesn't use exclusion/inclusion notes customized so that an incomplete explanation fits the actual lists. Alinor (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I added "the Caribbean" to List C, and added the former USSR countries to List D.

The reader can know exactly which UNIDO member belongs to a given list, because every geographical term (e.g. Latin America and the Caribbean) has a clear cut definition in Wikipedia.

The economical description misleads, because it makes the reader think that Turkey belongs to List A, and that Czech Republic + Israel + Slovakia + Slovenia + South Korea belong to List B.

Eliko (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the reader can't know exactly as both descriptions start with "the UNIDO members of this-and-that region (and economy)" - so, even if we say "all developed economies" or "all American countries" - the reader still has to check somehow who of these are UNIDO members and who aren't. The purpose of these descriptions is not to somehow condense the list of members into text. This is accomplished by the "UNIDO has 173 members. Observers are: exact list. Non-members are: exact list". The purpose of the descriptions is to describe the difference between the lists - as it is unusual for international organizations to have their members divided into lists (and in most cases the criteria are clear - such as IFAD, Kyoto protocol annex lists, etc.) Your insistence on inconsistent "Europe excluding France and including Brazil"-type of notes in unhelpful for achieving this - and I don't understand why you are opposed to the descriptions that include both the geographical and the economical commonalities between the lists members?

Having to revise multiple times by increasing the number of inconsistent notes your preferred description only shows that it is inappropriate/insufficient in this case. The latest addition of "including/excluding USSR" is also wrong - check the USSR members.

Western Europe also has different definitions - see the link you utilized - it is good as "general reference", but it can't be considered to exactly show which country belongs to a given list. Even reference to whole continents is not enough to "exactly" show country lists (all continents have a few "border" countries that are included in different or both continents - depending on the definition utilized). Reference to sub-continental "regions" are even more "floating" and such regions can have many different definitions. Alinor (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Both descriptions start with 'the UNIDO members of this-and-that region (and economy)' - so, even if we say 'all developed economies' or 'all American countries' - the reader still has to check somehow who of these are UNIDO members and who aren't".

I agree, just as the reader still has to check somehow which country is in "Latin America and the Caribbean". So what? The lists are not intended to inform the reader which UN member is in Latin America and the Caribbean, nor are they intended to inform the reader which UN member is a UNIDO member, but rather are intended to inform the reader which UNIDO member belongs to a given list. If the reader wants to know which UN member is also a UNIDO member, they can know that in a very simple manner: The article states that every UNIDO member is currently (as of 2010) a UN member, and the article also points out which UN member is not a UNIDO member, so the reader can easily conclude which UN member is a UNIDO member. Anyways, the description of the four lists is not intended to inform which country is a UNIDO member, but rather is intended to inform the reader which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.

• "The purpose of these descriptions is not to somehow condense the list of members into text".

I agree, the purpose of these descriptions is not to somehow condense the list of members into text, but rather is to somehow condense List A into text, and List B into text, and List C into text, and List D into text (in the shortest most compact textual way, because this is an encyclopedia, rather than a novel).

• "The purpose of the descriptions is to describe the difference between the lists".

Yes, the difference is clear, just as there's a difference between Latin America and Africa !!! Who says there's no difference? There is a difference, and it's indicated in the geographical description of the four lists. However, if you mean to ask: WHY the organization decided to put the Latin Amrican countries in a separate list, and so on, then I will answer: unfortunately, nobody knows. The economical description can't answer the question WHY, because this description is wrong: it makes the readers think that Turkey belongs to List A, and that Czech Republic + Israel + Slovakia + Slovenia + South Korea belong to List B.

• "Your insistence on inconsistent 'Europe excluding France and including Brazil'-type of notes...by increasing the number of inconsistent notes...".

Oh, really? "inconsistent"? what's "inconsistent" in the expression: "Asia minus Japan"? What's inconsistent in the expression: "Western Europe plus Japan"? Is the expression "X minus/plus Y" inconsistent?

• "Your insistence on...'Europe excluding France and including Brazil'-type of notes is unhelpful for achieving this".

Expressions like: "Asia minus Japan" or "Western Europe plus Japan", and likewise, are very helpful for achieving the purpose: to supply the shortest most compact textual way for letting the reader know exactly which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.

• "I don't understand why you are opposed to the descriptions that include both the geographical and the economical commonalities between the lists members?"

Because this description is wrong: it makes the readers think that Turkey belongs to List A, and that Czech Republic + Israel + Slovakia + Slovenia + South Korea belong to List B.

• "Having to revise [multiple times by increasing the number of...notes] your preferred description only shows that it is inappropriate".

What do you mean by "inappropriate"? From what point of view?

• "Having to revise [multiple times by increasing the number of...notes], your preferred description, only shows that it is...insufficient in this case".

I definitely disagree. My increasing the number of notes like "X plus/minus Y" and the like, is intended to avoid errors, and this kind of description with such notes is absolutely sufficient for achieving the purpose: to supply the shortest most compact textual way for letting the reader know exactly which UNIDO member belongs to a given list.

• "The latest addition of "including/excluding USSR" is also wrong - check the USSR members".

Yes, It was really wrong before I fixed it, but now it's correct. Now it's: the former USSR republics currently being CE members.

• "Western Europe also has different definitions - see the link you utilized".

Oh, really? Wikipedia has one single definition; Click here.

• "it can't be considered to 'exactly' show which country belongs to a given list".

Why can't it? Doesn't the reader exactly know all of that, by just reading the geographical descriptions (including the links to the relevant articles in Wikipedia about Western Europe and the like)?

• "Even reference to whole continents is not enough to "exactly" show country lists (all continents have a few "border" countries that are included in different or both continents - depending on the definition utilized)".

You're right, but my reviewed definition of the former USSR republics avoids this difficulty.

• "Reference to sub-continental "regions" are even more "floating" and such regions can have many different definitions".

Unless Wikipedia has a clear cut definition for this sub-continental region.

Eliko (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Oh, really? Wikipedia has one single definition; Click here." (western europe) - Realy. your link leads to the "historical section" of West europe article. The "present time" section includes a different list and also mentions that there are other possible groupings with the same name. So, this confirms my point - both geographical and economical descriptions are useful only to the degree to provide general direction, not to show the exact membership of list a/b/c/d.

Your "consisting of all UNIDO states, that are located in Africa, Oceania (excluding New Zealand), and Asia (excluding Cyprus, Japan, Turkey, and the former USSR republics currently being CE members)." includes not only two exclusion notes, one of whitch is a mini-list itself, but has even nested exclusion notes mixed with inclusion notes! So, if someone reads this he should almost solve an equation with multiple unknowns. First he checks what countries are included in Africa, Oceania and Asia (is Georgia in Asia or in Europe?). Then, he excludes the UNIDO observers and non-members listed at the end of the "Membership" section. Then he excludes the states explicitely mentioned in your description. Then he has to check who are the former USSR republics. Then he has to check who of these republics are CoE members (note the proper abreviation, not CE). Finally he has to include only those former USSR republics that are not CoE members. Maybe we should provide pen and paper to the readers... Please, you can't seriously consider this to be more informative than "developing and transition economies of Africa, Asia and Oceania".

" this economic+geographic description is wrong: it makes the readers think that Turkey belongs to List A, and that Czech Republic + Israel + Slovakia + Slovenia + South Korea belong to List B. " - I repeat- these descriptions, because of their nature, can not be anything more that general guidelines. They cannot be exact lists (as they refer to groups that are not unambigously defined - the groups like "western europe" and "develoing country" are "amorph"/"undefined"). But anyway, you are not correct - just like "western europe", "europe" and other geographical definitions have multiple variations in Wikipedia - the terms "developing", "developed" and "transition" are not firm lists, but have multiple variants - so, the countries that you list as "placed wrong" are just some of the borderline cases that are considered by some criteria (e.g. IMF) for developing, when by another (e.g. GDP) they are considered developed. Alinor (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, CoE, Thank you for the correction.
• Yes, Wikipedia has only single defintion for the Western European countries, which is mistakenly exhibited as a sub-chapter under a wrong chapter, instead of being a sub-chapter under the correct chapter "Present time"! You can realize that yourself, by noticing that this Wikipedia's list of Western European countries, states clearly and explicitly: "Western Europe is composed of", rather than "had been composed of" or stuff like that. Furthermore, when the reader reads: "List B consists of UNIDO states located in Western Europe...", they see a direct link which lists those Western European countries, in a single manner, so no confusion may arise!
• As for Georgia, it doesn't matter whether Georgia is Asian or European, because the calculation leads to the same result in both cases! Georgia is both a CoE member and a former USSR republic, so it must be excluded from the Asian countries, any way!
• The geographical description is far more informative, because it doesn't constitute "general gudelines" only (as you've put it), but rather lets every reader (who has "a pen and paper" as you've put it) use this description for knowing exactly which country belongs to a given list, while the economical-geographical description misleads readers who consider it a "reliable exact formula"! Note that the five countries I've indicated are not borderline cases! At least not in Wikipedia! No familiar international institution considers them "developing" countries! For more details, see the article: Developed country.
• By the way, your calculation (with a pen and paper) was wrong. According to the "compact" geographical description, you must exclude (from UNIDO Asian members) every country which is both a CoE member and a former USSR republic, so you end up with a list of countries which doesn't contain Belarus, while your wrong calculation ends up with Belarus as well ! Additionally, according to the "compact" geographical description, one has to exclude the non-members at the end of the calculation, rather than in the beginning!

Eliko (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I was giving just an example with Georgia - of how the geographical descriptions are not "exact". In this particular case, as the list covers 3 continents (Asia, Africa, Oceania) the many of the "borderline" are included regardless and as you added the nested mixed note about the USSR-CoE Georgia also gets OK, but this is only a coincidence - using "Europe" or "Asia" instead of an exact list is not advisable in principle - as their borders have multiple definitions.

I haven't checked your long explanation about where should Belarus go according to your convoluted and tangled description - and I don't claim that my example "walktrough" of it above is correct. I only gave it so that you see that nobody (very few) would be able to follow trough it. And it seems that it is so unease to use, that I even made a mistake in trying to follow it. In short - these are unhelpful to the readers. If we are going to provide exact lists we can do just that - as many other pages, there is no need for such unhelpful-and-hard-to-use notes.

I don't know if Western Europe article arrangements are correct or not - the fact is that in the article are described multiple possible lists of its members. Note also the yellow map in the lead section that differs from your prefered list.

The geographic+economic descriptions are not misleading as they include wording such as "List X consists mostly of developing economies from Asia and Africa" - so that it is clear that this is just a general-direction, not an exact definition. Alinor (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Using 'Europe' or 'Asia' instead of an exact list is not advisable in principle".

I agree with you that using "Europe" or "Asia" is not advisable in principle, however this "principle" doesn't influence the case of the geographical description of UNIDO lists, because Turkey is mentioned explicitly in List B, while every other borderline country (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia), is anyway calculated as a former USSR republic currently being a CoE member, so no confusion may arise.

• "You see that nobody (very few) would be able to follow trough it...In short - these are unhelpful to the readers...unhelpful-and-hard-to-use notes".

I disagree with you. These descriptions are very helpful to the readers, because every reader is able to follow them, providing that the reader really wants to. Wikipedia has a lot of much more complex descriptions (read its scientific articles, its legal articles, its linguistic articles, its mathematical articles. and many others), and nobody has complained about their being "unhelpful-and-hard-to-use", so I don't see why anybody should complain about much less complex descriptions in "political" articles, like UNIDO article.

• "And it seems that it is so unease to use, that I even made a mistake in trying to follow it".

You made a mistake, just because you didn't follow the exact description. Had you followed it, you'd have made no mistakes. Wikipedia doesn't have to care about those who don't follow the exact instructions in it.

• "If we are going to provide exact lists we can do just that - as many other pages".

Exactness of data is not enough. We are editing an encyclopedia, rather than writing a novel, so not only must the data be exact, they must also be written in the shortest most compact textual way.

• "I don't know if Western Europe article arrangements are correct or not".

Because you haven't read the explicit words: "Western Europe is composed of". "Is" rather than "had been".

• "In the article are described multiple possible lists of its members. Note also the yellow map in the lead section that differs from your prefered list".

By saying "multiple possible lists" you mean: two lists (one of which is reflected also by a colorful map), and another yellow map. So: one (old) list, which is reflected also by the colorful map, is accompanied by a note about the connection between this old list and the Cold War, and about its limited applicability (for "statistical convenience only"). The other map, is accompanied by a note stating that this is National Geographic's map. There is one single list, not accompanied by any limiting note, and this list is Wikipedia's list, to which List B (in the article UNIDO) has a link, so nothing is wrong with this! Furthermore, no confusion may arise, since the reader has a direct link to Wikipedia's list, and not to any other list!

• "The geographic+economic descriptions are not misleading as they include wording such as 'List X consists mostly of developing economies from Asia and Africa' - so that it is clear that this is just a general-direction, not an exact definition".

The geographic+economic description hasn't included wording such as "mostly of developing economies". The word "mostly" was attached to the geographical expressions (e.g. "Asia" and likewise), rather than to the economical expressions. Furthermore, even if the geographic+economic description did include such wording as "mostly of developing economies", the geographical description would still be much more informative than the geographic+economic description, since the geographical description doesn't constitute a "general direction" only, but rather lets every reader (who has "a pen and paper") use this description for knowing exactly which country belongs to a given list, while the economical-geographical description does not enable that.

Eliko (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"we are not writing a novel" - many articles of international organizations have their members listed, this is not an issue. Non-listing members is mostly because of laziness of editors, not because of Wikipedia policy. Anyway, we could easily put a hide-able list (with [show] button) - so that it is both exact and as short as possible.

Description like "consisting of all UNIDO states, that are located in Africa, Oceania (excluding New Zealand), and Asia (excluding: Cyprus, Japan, Turkey, and every former USSR republic currently being a CoE member)." are uneasy to comprehend (I don't claim impossible, but just harder than necessary/advisable). It is expected and acceptable to have complex descriptions about article topics like quantum-electro-dynamics or foreign-policy-of-the-united-states, where the topic itself is complex. Having unnecessary complex description of a simple list of states is wrong. The description I cited here refers on the top level to 4 groups (UNIDO members - base group, 3 continental) with 2 exclusion notes, where (level2) another group is refered to (USSR) itself (level3) having an inclusion note referring to yet another group (level4). In addition the base "UNIDO members" group is unknown, until you check 5 (five!) additional lists - "not assigned members", "signed not ratified", "observers", "former members", "non members" (the last one itself refers to additional group, described in another article). So, in total we have 14 groups in a mix of both inclusion and exclusion notes nested to a depth of 3-4 levels. Yes, anybody could extract the information from this (if we disregard the ambiguity of the continental groups, that you don't agree to exist). But this is not better than just listing the exact member states.

Western Europe. You look at only you want to see. "Is" is written. But this is in the historical section. So these two arguments negate each other. In the "present time" section yet another classification is presented - the UN geoscheme classification. On the top of the article there is a yellow map with a different classification (corresponding to the table at the bottom of the article).

The initial geographic+economical description were not as you described them above. See: "consisting mostly of countries with developing or transition economies from Asia, Africa and Oceania;" [2]

Anyway, initially I added 'citation needed' flags there, as in the sources the lists were refered to only by their A/B/C/D names. As you stated above descriptions of the list don't require source, they just need to be "right". The initial descriptions are correct, so I will combine them with the current (and maybe I will replace the astrophysics-complexity-level exclusion notes with a simple hide/show exact list). Alinor (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Many articles of international organizations have their members listed, this is not an issue. Non-listing members is mostly because of laziness of editors".

On the contrary, listing all of the members, instead of giving an encyclopedic shorter more compact description that exhausts (precisely) all of the members, is generally because of the editors' laziness (of thinking).

• "Non-listing members is...not because of Wikipedia policy".

I agree with you that there's no such policy. However, Wikipedia does encourage editors to use compact style (wherever possible), rather than long formulations, because compactness is a property of encyclopedias, lengthiness being a property of novels. Here is an example: When Wikipedia defines the term "boy", it says shortly: "young male human" (thus referring to 3 groups only), instead of listing billions of members of the group "boys" who live on earth. Why? Because Wikipedia encourages editors to use compact style.

• "we could easily put a hide-able list (with [show] button) - so that it is both exact and as short as possible".

Yes, we can do that, as a hidden detailed "internal" description, for whoever wants to start reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. However, we will also have to add a short exact compact description, as a permanently visible encyclopedic "external" description, for whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on.

• "Description like...are uneasy to comprehend...harder than necessary/advisable".

If we'd edited textbooks or coursebooks for low grades, I'd have agreed with you that, for these textbooks, the geographical description is "harder than necessary/advisable". However, we're editing an encyclopedia, rather than a textbook; For encyclopedias, the geographical compact description is more advisable than hard.

• "It is expected and acceptable to have complex descriptions about article topics like quantum-electro-dynamics or foreign-policy-of-the-united-states, where the topic itself is complex".

When I mentioned the scientific articles and the like, I didn't necessarily refer to complex topics, but also to neutral topics, in which any description that would list all the members of a given group, would really be simpler but much longer. Anyway, an encyclopedia shouldn't make a distinction between "complex" and "simple" topics, because an encyclopedias is not a textbook.

• "Having unnecessary complex description".

Although it's unnecessary, it's still recommended, because it's shorter and more compact, thus more encyclopedic.

• "Having...complex description of a simple list of states is wrong".

It would have been wrong, had we been editing a textbook, but remember that we're editing an encyclopedia, rather than a textbook. Encyclopedias always prefer short compact (even comlex) descriptions, to long (even simple) ones, like listing 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. The fact that the editors in Wikipedia frequently present full lists where they could present shorter more compact descriptions, just shows the editors' laziness (of thinking).

• "The description...refers, on the top level, to 4 groups (UNIDO members - base group, 3 continental) with 2 exclusion notes, where (level2) another group is refered to (USSR) itself (level3) having an inclusion note referring to yet another group (level4)...So, in total we have...depth of 3-4 levels".

Yes, four levels, but you were wrong when you described them. The correct calculation is as following: 1. UNIDO members which are also: 2. African countries, or..., or Asian countries which are neither: 3. Cyprus, nor..., nor former USSR republics which are currently: 4. CoE members.

• "in total we have 14 groups".

I see eleven groups only: 1. UN members. 2. "not assigned members", 3. "signed not ratified". 4. "observers". 5. "former members". 6. "non members". 7. African countries. 8. Oceanian countries. 9. Asian countries. 10. former USSR republics. 11. CoE countries. Notice that the group of UNIDO members is reached by the first six groups. Also notice that, once one is given the contents of all the eleven groups mentioned above, one can know exactly which country belongs to List A.

• "having an inclusion note referring to yet another group...we have a mix of both inclusion and exclusion notes".

Inclusion notes? It seems like you haven't read my comment about Belarus in a previous response of mine (on 5/10,2010). If the geographical had really contained an inclusion note, then the whole calculation would have ended up with Belarus being in List A. However, in fact, Belarus is not in List A according to the geographical description, because the geographical description contains no inclusion notes! It only instructs to take two groups (each of which defined by other two sets), and then to exclude one group from another, and that's all! e.g. with regard to the Asian countries you're talking about, everybody who's read and undersood the geographical description, understands that what should be done now is to take the group of UNIDO asian countries (which is defined by the set of UNIDO countries and by the set of Asian countries), and also to take the group of "former USSR republics currently being CoE members" (which is defined by the set of former USSR republics, and by the set of CoE members), and then, to exclude Cyprus and Japan and turkey, from the first group, and then, to start excluding countries that belong to the second group, from the first group, untill the first group contains no country belonging to the second group. So where do you see here inclusion notes?

• "if we disregard the ambiguity of the continental groups, that you don't agree to exist".

Don't agree? I did agree, but this ambiguity is irrelevant to the geographical description, which is unambiguous at all: any definition of Asia and of Europe would lead to the same lists, because any borderline country is anyway included in the group of "former USSR republics currently being CoE members", so no ambiguity and no confusion may arise.

• "But this is not better than just listing the exact member states".

Encyclopedias always prefer short compact (even comlex) descriptions, to long (even simple) ones (like listing 94 names of countries in List A, and so on). The fact that the editors in Wikipedia frequently present full lists where they could present shorter more compact descriptions, just shows the editors' laziness (of thinking).

• "Western Europe. You look at only [what] you want to see".

No, I looked both at the "is", and at name of the chapter under which the sup-chapter "Western Europe" was put. I just said that the chapters were ordered wrongfully.

• "Is is written. But this is in the historical section. So these two arguments negate each other".

Yes, and the error was with the way of ordering the chapters, rather than with the word "is". Do you really think that the list (ibid.) is historical? which period? Why doesn't that sub-chapter (ibid.) indicate the period? Why doesn't that sub-chapter (ibid.) indicate any historical background or any details about the way that list is concerning/relating to the historic period in which this list was valid, etc.? All of these questions are easily answered once one notices that the aticle (ibid.) states explicitly "is", rather than "was", thus realizing that the error was in the way the chapters were ordered, rather than with the word "is".

• "In the "present time" section yet another classification is presented - the UN geoscheme classification. On the top of the article there is a yellow map with a different classification (corresponding to the table at the bottom of the article)".

It seems like you haven't read what I wrote about that in my previous response, so let me quote myself (with few short additions in brackets): "[There are] two lists (one of which is reflected also by a colorful map), and another yellow map [corresponding to the "population table" at the bottom of the article]. So: one (old) list, which is reflected also by the colorful map, is accompanied by a note about the connection between this old list and the Cold War, and about its limited applicability (for 'statistical convenience only'). The other map, is accompanied by a note stating that this is National Geographic's map [this is the same note attached to the "population table"]. There is one single list, not accompanied by any limiting note, and this list is Wikipedia's list, to which List B (in the article UNIDO) has a link, so nothing is wrong with this! Furthermore, no confusion may arise, since the reader has a direct link to Wikipedia's list, and not to any other list!"

• "The initial geographic+economical descriptions were not as you described them above".

When I described them, I didn't refer to their older version (of 3/8/2010), but rather I referred to their last version. That version was edited on 4/10/2010, at 8:25, and on the same day, just one hour earlier, you wrote on the discussion page: "if you insist we can add a note in brackets about 'mostly from Europe' or similar". So in my previous response I wrote that: "The geographic+economic description [i.e. in its last version] hasn't included wording such as: mostly of developing economies". Furthermore, the geographical description is also more informative than the older version of the geographic+economic description, since the geographical description doesn't constitute a general direction only, but rather lets every reader (who has "a pen and paper") use this description for knowing exactly which country belongs to a given list, while the economical-geographical description (both in its old version and in its last version) does not enable that.

• "The initial descriptions are correct".

Providing that we're talking about the older version of 3/8/10 (which you've indicated in you recent response), rather than about the last version of 4/10/2010.

• "the astrophysics-complexity-level exclusion notes".

If we'd edited textbooks for low grades, then I'd have agreed with you, that the level of complexity in the geographical description wouldn't have been appropriate for these textbooks. However, we're editing an encyclopedia, rather than a textbook; For encyclopedias, the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compacness.

• "so I will combine them with the current (and maybe I will replace the...exclusion notes with a simple hide/show exact list)".

Yes, we can add a simple hidden detailed "internal" list, for whoever wants to start reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. However, we will also have to add a short exact compact description, as a permanently visible encyclopedic "external" description, for whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on.

Eliko (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The hidden list will not be "internal" (e.g. hidden in the wikicode), it will be "external", it will be visible on the page - it will be something like this: "List A - countries that drive on the left of the road, excluding those who don't allow cigarettes sales. [show]" And when you click on "show" the list of these countries will appear below the description.

Western Europe. I pointed to you multiple other parts of the article, where different WE-lists are shown/refered to. This does not boil down to "-is-list is wrongly put in -was-section". Also, maybe your prefered -is-list is put in the correct section, but its description is wrong, e.g. it should be "During the Cold War Western Europe was a reference to: ... ".

In fact, if you look at the general structure of the WE article it is: "antiquity and medieval", "later political developments", "present time". The "antiquity and medieval" section contains historical references, but stretching into modern times, up to the Cold War. Its two sub-sections (Easter Europe and Western Europe) show exactly this common division - as it was during the Cold War. Then, the "later political developments" describes the events that changed the previous arrangement. Then comes the "present time" section, where there isn't a single "set in stone" WE group, but multiple (UN statistical, UN regional, non-UN represented by one example - head yellow map). In any case this doesn't matter as there are still other WE-lists in the article.

You are not correct with the textbook allusions that you make, with the "boy" example, "encyclopedias need to be short". Paper encyclopedias need to be extremely short - as they are confined in a very limited space. Wikipedia doesn't need to be short. It is advisable that no essays are put into Wikipedia, and most of these get trimmed/wikifyied. But if the article is done in the right way it can be very exhaustive description of its topic - there are many "big" Wikipedia articles (for example about some of the complex topics we discussed above). The boy article clearly can't and shouldn't list all boys in the World. At least because they are not WP:notable. For any international organization members list the best arrangement is to have both exact list and, if applicable, some description of the commonality between the members. Of course, sometimes only exact list is written, sometimes only a description. About the "since my multiple times corrected-by-adding-more-notes list, if followed correctly, gives the exact states, then we should keep it". First, I'm not sure that it gives the exact countries - so far, I have found multiple errors in it, you corrected them by making it even more complex. Also I'm not sure that there is no sub-continental group ambiguity issue. But maybe you and I have missed some other errors. Second, Wikipedia articles need to be written comprehensible, and it is not advised to make simple things complexer (boy = homo sapiens creature with male genitalia organs in an early period of his life, situated between 'baby'[replace with complex description] and 'adult'[replace with complex description] - this is what the current descriptions accomplish).

And also, the general notion of "Wikipedia is not a roman/novel" is about articles with too much prose/descriptive texts with unnecessary adjectives, etc. - this is not about lists - the list is as long as needed by its topic - you can't make "too long" or "too short" list. You can change the topic so that it includes more or less "things to list". Our topics here are pretty clear (List A/B/C/D), so we don't have any issue with list lenghts (also such lists are simply arranged in a single paragraph, that would occupy less space than this indent-part-of-my-comment).

In any case having the exact list of states is better than a convoluted description like the current ones. I suggest having both the exact lists (in a way that won't clutter the article) and not-so-convoluted descriptions.

The fact that you argue if your description has 14 or 11 groups shows that I didn't explain well enough why I don't think these descriptions are preferable to the other. It doesn't matter if the groups are 11 or 14. In both cases they are too much! I bothered to take down this description to its pieces and count them only in order show you its complexity and how non-usefull it is.

" For encyclopedias, the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compacness." - Any complexity is unwelcome in low grade text books. Unnecessary complexity is unwelcome in low grade text books, paper encyclopedias, online encyclopedias. Unnecessary complexity can be accepted, as exception rather than rule, in paper encyclopedia - as a compromise in order increase compactness. Unnecessary complexity as a replacement for such a simple thing as a list of states is entirely inappropriate in online encyclopedia. Replacing the "geographical" with the "economic+geographical" (see below - I mean some modification of the "correct" variation, not the "last" one) descriptions and putting shown-on-demand exact list will simultaneously remove unnecessary complexity, increase informative value, be 100% clear to all readers, be 100% correct (in contrast to current descriptions, where I am not sure that all errors are found/corrected, and also the WE-ambiguity issue), be as compact or more compact than the current descriptions.

But OK, let's count the groups referred to in the current descriptions of List A: UNIDO members, All States (UN if you prefer), UNIDO non-assigned, UNIDO signed-but-not-ratified, UNIDO observers, UNIDO former members, UNIDO non-members, Africa, Asia, Oceania, Excluded-from-Asia, Excluded-from-Oceania, USSR, CoE. I see 14 groups. But I don't argue about that - even 11 are too much and unneeded.

A side note - why do you arrange it "Africa, Oceania, Asia"? The alphabetical order is "Africa, Asia, Oceania". The most commonly used combinations are also "Africa and Asia" and "Asia and Oceania". "Africa and Oceania" and "Oceania and Aisa" are pretty rarely, if ever, used. I understand that the convoluted Asia exclusion note is better to be placed last, but this only shows the disadvantages of these complex descriptions.

Levels. "Yes, four levels, but you were wrong when you described them." Yes, maybe it should be: UNIDO-level1, continents-level2, exclusion notes-level3, USSR-level4, CoE-level5. And as I explained above - it doesn't matter exactly how many levels there are in these descriptions - what matters is that the levels are too much and the descriptions are unnecessarily complex. As I said above - a better arrangement is possible.

Inclusion/exclusion debate. My head hurts when I read your explanation about that. OK, again, it doesn't matter how we are calling the notes - exclusion or inclusion. I refer to 'exclude USSR republics' as exclusion note and to the 'USSR republics included in the CoE' as inclusion note, and thus to a mixed 'exclude USSR republics included in CoE' note. Maybe you are right about inclusion/exclusion definition. So, we still have 4-5 levels with 11-14 groups.

I don't understand why you think that this is better than a shorter, simpler and more informative description plus shown-on-demand exact list.

"When I described them, I didn't refer to their older version (of 3/8/2010), but rather I referred to their last version. That version was edited on 4/10/2010, at 8:25" - the 'last' version was made rushly, at the sidelines of the debate here (initiated by your undiscussed deletion of the initial version) - to show one possible variant.

"Providing that we're talking about the older version of 3/8/10" - yes, that's what I am referring to as "geographical+economical" version. Alinor (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't encountered shown-on-demand text so far, let's stop this debate for a while, so that I can implement one example version. Alinor (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. The descriptions avoid using wording like "the list contains all countries that are this-and-that" so that there is no need for "mostly", "generally" and similar adjectives. Nevertheless the few special cases that don't fit to the description have remarks explaining this (somewhat like replacement of exclusion notes). Alinor (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• ”The hidden...will be something like this: 'List A - countries that drive on the left of the road, excluding those who don't allow cigarettes sales. [show]'. And when you click on 'show' the list of these countries will appear below the description”.

Yes, that's exactly how I understood what you'd meant. Note that, by “hidden internal description” I meant: “a description hidden by a show/hide button”, and by “permanently visible external description” I meant: “a description visible even without a butte. So I answered: “Yes, we can add a simple hidden detailed internal list, for whoever wants to start reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. However, we will also have to add a short exact compact description [which informs the reader exactly which country belongs to a given list], as a permanently visible encyclopedic external description for whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on.

• ”Western Europe. I pointed to you multiple other parts of the article, where different WE-lists are shown/referred to”.

Yes and, as I've already pointed out (in my last two previous responses), each one of these lists is accompanied by a note limiting the applicability of the list, while the article (in its last version before you changed it) has only one list accompanied by no limiting note, and this list is what was the “is list” (before you changed it to a “was list”).

• ”This does not boil down to '-is-list is wrongly put in -was-section'...”.

I didn't claim that this boils down to '-is-list is wrongly put in -was-section. What does boil down to that, is a combination of two facts: 1. the article (in its last version before you changed it) has only one list accompanied by no limiting note, and this list is what was the “is list” (before you changed it to a “was list”). 2. the sub-chapter that describes the “is list” (in its last version before you changed it) doesn't indicate any historical period to which the “is-list” refers.

• ”maybe...it should be: 'During the Cold War' Western Europe 'was' a reference to: ...' ”.

Maybe, but then you'll have to admit that this sub-chapter (in its last version before you changed it) contains more than one mistake, i.e. 1. the editor had a bad grammar, thus writing “is” instead of “was”. 2. The editor “forgot” to indicate the historical period to which the “is-list” refers. Whereas my suggestion about the Western Europe article (in its last version before you changed it) involves one single mistake, that is in the way the chapters were ordered.

• ”Its two sub-sections (Easter Europe and Western Europe) show exactly this common division - as it was during the Cold War”.

That's unreasonable, because the sub-section mentions “Germany” (rather than “West Germany”), although during most of the Cold War (i.e. from May 1949 until October 1990) there was no such a state called Germany.

• ”In any case this doesn't matter as there are still other WE-lists in the article”.

Yes, this doesn't matter as much, but from another point of view: As I've pointed out in my previous responses, when the reader reads: "List B consists of UNIDO states located in Western Europe...", they see a direct link which lists those Western European countries, in a single manner, so no confusion may arise! Click and see what I mean! Additionally, no confusion will arise if I replace the link mentioned above by this link, and delete the word “Turkey” from the geographical description of List B. Anyways, I won't recommend this option, unless you recommend it as well.

• “Wikipedia doesn't 'need' to be short...there are many "big" Wikipedia articles”.

”I haven't claimed that Wikipedia “needs” to be short, and I've never disqualified “big” articles. I just claimed (in my previous response): “Wikipedia does encourage editors to use compact style (wherever possible), rather than long formulations”. i.e. Wikipedia recommends to use the most compact way which exhausts the whole information (i.e. without missing any piece of information).

• ”if the article is done in the right way it can be very exhaustive description of its topic”

Of course, and the right way contains also the recommendation to use a compact style.

• ”The boy article clearly can't and shouldn't list all boys in the World. At least because they are not WP:notable”.

What I claim is that, the boy article shouldn't have listed all boys in the World, even if they had been WP:notable!

• ”For any international organization members list the best arrangement is to have both exact list and, if applicable, some description of the commonality between the members”.

I disagree with you. Exact list is needless and even not recommended, wherever a more compact description is possible. For example, if all American Pacific countries had established a common organization, then the best way for describing such a hypothetical organization should have been: “the organization of all American pacific countries”, instead of listing all of the countries which are both located in America and border the pacific ocean.

• ”I'm not sure that it [i.e the geographical description] gives the exact countries”.

You are not sure, because you didn't test the current geographical description, whereas I did test it, and I am sure that it gives the exact countries. If you are not sure, try to refute the current geographical description, but you can't ignore my testing it, just because you are lazy to test it yourself.

• ”So far, I have found multiple errors in it”.

You have found errors in previous versions of the geographical description, and this is what a good editor has to do: to find mistakes, and to correct them. You found mistakes, so you're a good editor, and I corrected them, so I'm a good editor as well. Excellent. What's bad now? If you are not sure whether the current version of the geographical description is exact, then try to find mistakes in it it (as a good editor), but you can't ignore my testing it, just because you are lazy to test it yourself.

• ”you corrected them by making it even more complex”.

For encyclopedias (including Wikipedia), the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compactness.

• ”I'm not sure that there is no sub-continental group ambiguity issue”.

You're not sure, just because you ignore the fact that all borderline countries are in Asia and in Europe, while each one of those countries is either: Turkey (mentioned explicitly in List B), or Armenia, or Azerbaijan, or Georgia or Russia (which are any way calculated as former USSR republics currently being a CoE members), so no confusion may arise.

• ”But maybe you and I have missed some other errors”.

I have already tested the current geographical description (much better than how I checked out its previous versions), and I've found no mistakes in it. If you suspect it's still contains some other errors, try to find them, but you can't ignore my testing it, just because you are lazy to test it yourself.

• ”Wikipedia articles need to be written comprehensible”.

Fortunately, the geographical description is really comprehensible.

• ”it is not advised to make simple things complexer”.

Unless the more complex description is still comprehensible and is also more compact.

• ”boy = homo sapiens creature with male genitalia organs in an early period of his life, situated between 'baby' [replace with complex description] and 'adult' [replace with complex description] - this is what the current descriptions accomplish”.

The alternative description you've exemplified, is really unrecommended, but not because it's complex, but rather because it replaces a more compact description, that is: “young make human”. In the same manner, the geographical description would have been unrecommended, had there been a more compact description. Do you know of any shorter more compact description, which informs the reader exactly which country belongs to a given list?

• ”the general notion of 'Wikipedia is not a roman/novel' is about articles with too much prose/descriptive texts with unnecessary adjectives, etc.”.

Yes, the notion about “long” novel is really about “unnecessary adjectives” and the like, as you've indicated, however I used this notion of novels, just as an allegory for unnecessary long descriptions (remember that listing members of a given list is also a kind of “description” for the list), the moral being: a long list of 94 names of countries (in List A), instead of a compact description (of List A), the length of which is less than a third of the length of the long list.

• ”the list is as long as needed by its topic - you can't make 'too long' or 'too short' list”.

Yes, but you can make 'too long' descriptions and 'too short' descriptions. Just remember that listing members of a given list is also a kind of “description” for the list.

• ”Our topics here are pretty clear (List A/B/C/D)”.

I disagree. Our topic here is the way Wikipedia should describe these lists: whether by listing them, or by describing them in a compact way other than listing them.

• ”we don't have any issue with list lengths”.

However, we do have an issue with description lengths, and remember that listing members of a given list is also a kind of “description” for the list.

• ”also such lists are simply arranged in a single paragraph, that would occupy less space than this indent-part-of-my-comment”.

The indent-part-of-your-comment is in the discussion page, rather than in the article.

• ”In any case having the exact list of states is better than a convoluted description like the current ones”.

Notice that (as I've explained in my previous response), the geographical description doesn't contain a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes, so it's not “convoluted” (as you've called it), but rather is “complex” only. Anyways, listing the states of the list, is a long description of the list, while the current complex description is a shorter more compact description of the list, so it's better than listing the states of the list.

• ”I suggest having both the exact lists (in a way that won't clutter the article) and not-so-convoluted descriptions”.

As I've indicated above, the geographical description is not “convoluted” (as you've called it), but rather is “complex” only. Anyways, as I've indicated in my previous response, we can add a simple hidden detailed list (shown by a hide/show button), for whoever wants to start reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. However, we will also have to add a short exact compact description [which informs the reader exactly which country belongs to a given list], as a permanently visible encyclopedic description, for whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on.

• ”The fact that you argue if your description has 14 or 11 groups shows that I didn't explain well enough why I don't think these descriptions are preferable to the other. It doesn't matter if the groups are 11 or 14. In both cases they are too much!”

Your claim quoted above shows that I didn't explain well enough why I claimed that it was 11 rather than 14. It really doesn't matter if the groups are 11 or 14. In both cases, they describe List A in a more compact way than that listing all of the countries in List A. When I claimed that 11 groups were sufficient, I meant that your claim about the 14 groups showed that you didn't follow the geographical description.

• ”in order show you its complexity and how non-useful it is”.

I agree with you that it's complex, but I don't agree with you that if it had contained 14 groups then it would have been non-useful.

• ”Unnecessary complexity is unwelcome in...online encyclopedias”.

Unless it's not “unnecessary” but rather is recommended, e.g. when it's intended to increase compactness.

• ”Unnecessary complexity can be accepted, as exception rather than rule, in paper encyclopedia - as a compromise in order increase compactness”.

If it's really “in order to increase compactness”, then it's recommended rather than “unnecessary”.

• ”Unnecessary complexity as a replacement for such a simple thing as a list of states is entirely inappropriate in online encyclopedia”.

Unless it's not “unnecessary” but rather is recommended (in both paper encyclopedias and online encyclopedias), e.g. when it's intended to increase compactness.

• ”Replacing the 'geographical' with the 'economic+geographical' (see below - I mean some modification of the 'correct' variation, not the 'last' one) descriptions and putting shown-on-demand exact list will simultaneously remove unnecessary complexity, increase informative value, be 100% clear to all readers, be 100% correct...be as compact or more compact than the current descriptions.”.

If the "economic+geographical" description you plan to formulate is going to inform the reader exactly which country belongs to a given list, and is going to be as short as the geographical description (if not shorter), then it will be welcome.

• ”in contrast to current descriptions, where I am not sure that all errors are found/corrected”.

You are not sure, because you didn't test the current geographical description, whereas I did test it, and I am sure that it gives the exact countries. If you are not sure, try to find errors in the current geographical description, but you can't ignore my testing it, just because you are lazy to test it yourself.

• ”Also the WE-ambiguity issue”.

No ambiguity, because as I've already pointed out (above and in my previous responses), when the reader reads: "List B consists of UNIDO states located in Western Europe...", they see a direct link which lists those Western European countries, in a single manner, so no confusion may arise! Click and see what I mean!

• ”But OK, let's count the groups referred to in the current descriptions of List A: UNIDO members, All States (UN if you prefer), UNIDO non-assigned, UNIDO signed-but-not-ratified, UNIDO observers, UNIDO former members, UNIDO non-members...”

Your calculation wrongfully considers UNIDO twice! Don't forget that if you've already got this group of UNIDO, then you no longer need the other 6 groups indicated above, whereas if you have the other six groups, then you no longer need to get the group of UNIDO, because, as I've already pointed out in my previous response, “the group of UNIDO members is reached by the...[other] six groups”!

• ”Excluded-from-Asia, Excluded-from-Oceania”.

It's not an external group (i.e. not an external list you have to look at for knowing which country belongs to List A according to the geographical description), but rather is an explicit name of a country excluded from Oceania, along with 4 explicit names of countries excluded from Asia. Don't forget what your claim about the groups is intended for: it's intended to prove that the geographical description is “complex”, because this description sends the reader to look at external groups; However, indicating explicit names of countries adds nothing to the complexity, just as listing 94 countries of List A (as you suggest) adds nothing to the complexity, does it?

• ”even 11 are too much”.

Too much? 11 names of groups are less than 94 names of countries (in List A), so one should prefer 11 names of groups to 94 names of countries.

• ”even 11 are...unneeded”.

Not needed, but recommended.

• ”why do you arrange it 'Africa, Oceania, Asia'? The alphabetical order is: Africa, Asia, Oceania”.

The alphabetical order should be followed as a default, when no advantage is achieved in any other order. However, the geographical description had better use another order, for achieving a better style.

• ”I understand that the convoluted Asia exclusion note is better to be placed last”.

Notice that (as I've explained above and in my previous response), the geographical description doesn't contain a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes, so it's not “convoluted” (as you've called it), but rather is “complex” only.

• ”this only shows the disadvantages of these complex descriptions”.

No disadvantage exists in preferring a compact (even complex) description which ignores the alphabetical order for achieving a better style.

• ”maybe it should be: UNIDO-level1, continents-level2, exclusion notes-level3, USSR-level4, CoE-level5.

USSR is in level 3. Just try to formulate that logically, and you'll find that this description involves four levels only, because the phrase “which are” should be used three times only (as indicated in my previous response).

• ”it doesn't matter exactly how many levels there are in these descriptions”.

It really doesn't matter. In both cases the geographical descriptions describe List A in a more compact way than that listing all of the countries in List A.

• ”what matters is that the levels are too much”.

”Too much” is a comparative issue. What matters is that listing 94 names of countries in List A, is “too much”, compared to a thirty-word description that involves 11 groups and 4 levels.

• ”the descriptions are unnecessarily complex”.

The geographical complex description is not “unnecessary”, but rather is recommended, because it's intended to increase compactness.

• ”a better arrangement is possible”.

As I've pointed out above, if this arrangement is going to inform any reader (who wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A) exactly which country belongs to a given list, and is going to be as short as the geographical description (if not shorter), then it will be welcome. Additionally, as I've indicated (above and in my previous response), we can add a simple hidden detailed list (shown by a hide/show button), for whoever wants to start reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on.

• ”Inclusion/exclusion debate. My head hurts when I read your explanation about that”.

Try to read it when you're not tired and not exhausted.

• ”I refer... to the 'USSR republics included in the CoE' as inclusion note”.

So why didn't you refer to the Asian UNIDO countries as a group of Asian countries “included” in UNIDO countries? As I've well explained in my previous response, the group of “USSR republics included in the CoE” is a group which should be excluded from the group of Asian UNIDO countries. No inclusion note is needed for achieving List A according to the geographical description.

• ”we still have 4-5 levels with 11-14 groups'”.

As I've explained above, we have 4 levels and 11 groups. Anyways, even if we'd had 5 levels and 14 groups, what would have mattered is that listing 94 names of countries in List A, is “too much”, compared to a thirty-word description that involves 14 groups and 5 levels.

• ”I don't understand why you think that this is better than a shorter, simpler and more informative description plus shown-on-demand exact list”.

As I've indicated (above and in my previous response), we can add a shown-on-demand exact list, for whoever wants to start reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. However, we will also have to add a short exact compact description, as a permanently visible encyclopedic description for whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on. Additionally, if the "economic+geographical" description you plan to formulate is going to inform the reader exactly which country belongs to a given list, and is going to be as short as the geographical description (if not shorter), then it will be welcome.

• ”"the 'last' version was made rushly”.

”Your statement quoted above was written rashly.

• ”"the 'last' version was made...to show one possible variant”.

Which I claimed to be wrong (hence impossible), since that variant doesn't contain the word “mostly”.

• ”your undiscussed deletion of the initial version”.

It was discussed on the summary line.

• ”yes, that's [i.e. The old version] what I am referring to as 'geographical+economical' version”.

which I claimed to keep the readers from knowing exactly which country belongs to a given list.

• ”If you haven't encountered shown-on-demand text so far, let's stop this debate for a while, so that I can implement one example version”.

Of course I have encountered shown-on-demand text, why do you think I haven't? You can implement one example version, but try to make sure that whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries in List A, and so on, can know exactly which country belongs to List A, by reading the most compact description. Such a compact description should be as short as the geographical description (if not shorter).

• ”Done. The descriptions avoid using wording like "the list contains all countries that are this-and-that" so that there is no need for "mostly", "generally" and similar adjectives. Nevertheless the few special cases that don't fit to the description have remarks explaining this (somewhat like replacement of exclusion notes.”.

You must decide whether or not the part in small letters is necessary for the whole description: 1. If the part in small letters is unnecessary for the whole description, then the full information is intended to be extracted by only reading the part in the big letters, whereas this exhaustive description (i.e without its unneeded part in small letters), which avoids using the word "all" on purpose, is less informative than the geographical (complex) description, which informs the reader all countries that belong to a given list. However: 2. if the part in small letters is necessary for the whole description, then this exhaustive description (i.e including its necessary part in small letters) is much longer and far less compact than the geographical description, which needs no long additions in small letters, and enables the reader to extract the full information by reading few words only (e.g. reading thirty words only for extracting the full exhaustive information about List A, and so on).

Eliko (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't readed yet your explanation above, will reply later.

I was so kind not to revert your undiscussed changes (that started this discussion) - and expect that you would do the same - e.g. I will put it back, and please do not delete the lists without discussing it first. Alinor (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The full information is not to be extracted from the description, but anyway, if you insist some mostly/generally-adjective can be added.

Adding unnecessary complexity to simple thing as a list of states is inappropriate - the full list+description solution is the most informative one anyway - mostly because of "full list", but also because economical+geographical descriptions are more informative than geographical-only. In both cases there are "exceptions" that are properly noted. In the geographical-only version the exceptions are complex, in the economic+geographical - they are simple. And this is to be expected since the commonality between the states of the lists is based on both geographical and economical grounds, not on geographical only.

"enables the reader to extract the full information by reading few words only" + having to go trough the convoluted complex mess of 11-14 groups nested in 1-5 levels + obviously needing "pen and paper" to do this. In contrast the full-list variant requires only to click on the show button. And the "long additions in small letters" are, unlike the geographical exclusion notes, just an exact list of the member states - no need to "extract" information and to solve logical equations like "if X is member of Y, then remove the rest-of-Y members from Z, etc, etc." - the information is presented directly. Basically you propose that instead of pictures we put in the articles ZIP-files containing the pictures - anybody can download, decompress and view the pictures, no information is lost, but it is just easier to simply use the pictures themselves.

"if all American Pacific countries had established a common organization, then the best way for describing such a hypothetical organization should have been: “the organization of all American pacific countries” " - yes, the description "of all american pacific countries" should be in the lead of the article, but somewhere below there should be a list of the members. Because this is what many of the readers would look for anyway, they don't need puzzels to solve, they don't need to have to look in 10-20 other articles. Alinor (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If we continue to run in circles the obvious solution is to just list the states, without any descriptions. This is the most WP:verifiable anyway. Then, in some other paragraph, outside of the lists, the issues of geographical and economical commonality between list members can be explained. I don't think that this is better than the current way, but it is better than the unnecessary complex notes proposed. Alinor (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The current variant has only a few "special case" notes - and these are not lists in itself, do not contain multiple nested groups, etc. - these are individual (concerning only the state where they are put) simple statements like "considered developed", if the commonality of its group is "developing" or vice-versa. E.g. only a few STATES are exeptions (no groups, no levels) - in contrast to the other variant with exception LISTS/GROUPS, including complex arrangements with multiple nested levels. Alinor (talk) 12:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• ”I haven't read yet your explanation above, will reply later”.

So don't revert changes accompanied by full explanation (on the discussion page) before having read this explanation and before responding to every point in the explanation. I have never behaved this way: to revert before responding to every point in my colleague's explanation.

• ”I was so kind not to revert your undiscussed changes (that started this discussion) - and expect that you would do the same – e.g”.

Undiscussed changes? They were discussed on the summary line, as long as you had made no discussion on the discussion page! Furthermore, once you had made a discussion on the discussion page, I'd reverted nothing before I responded on the discussion page to each one of your points! It was so kind of me not to revert your versions before I read every explanation on the discussion page and before I responded to every point in those explanations – and I expect that you do the same thing.

• ”please do not delete the lists without discussing it first”.

Do you ask me not to delete before discussion? I've never deleted anything before I discussed the deletion first (whether on the discussion page once you had done the same thing, or on the summary line when you had made no explanation on the discussion page). So please follow me and do not change anything before discussing it first!

• The full information is not to be extracted from the description”.

I've never claimed that the full information is to be extracted from the description. Here is what I have claimed: It's recommended that the full information be able to be extracted from the shortest most compact description, i.e. it's recommended that an encyclopedic article (whether online encyclopedic article or not), contain the shortest most compact description from which the full information can be extracted.

• ”if you insist, some mostly/generally-adjective can be added”.

Any addition is welcome, but you must decide whether such an addition is a necessary part of the shortest most compact description proposed by you.

• ”Adding unnecessary complexity to simple thing as a list of states is inappropriate”.

If the complexity is intended to provide the full information in the shortest most compact encyclopedic way, then it's not “unnecessary” but rather is recommended and appropriate.

• ”the full list+description solution is the most informative one anyway - mostly because of full list”.

I don't disqualify the full list, which can be added also to the geographical list. However, you must decide whether or not the full list (written in small letters) is necessary for the whole description: 1. If the full list (written is small letters) is unnecessary for the whole description, then the full information is intended to be extracted by only reading the description (written in big letters), whereas this exhaustive description (i.e without its unneeded part in small letters), which avoids using the word "all" on purpose, is less informative than the geographical (complex) description, which informs the reader all countries that belong to a given list. However: 2. if the full list (written in small letters) is necessary for the whole description, then this exhaustive description (i.e including its necessary part in small letters) is much longer and far less compact than the geographical description, which needs no long additions in small letters, and enables the reader to extract the full information by reading few words only.

• ”but also because economical+geographical descriptions are more informative than geographical-only”.

The geographical description covers every country in the world, so this description supplies the full information.

• ”In both cases there are 'exceptions' that are properly noted. In the geographical-only version the exceptions are complex”.

First, the economical+geographical description indicates (in footnotes) the exceptions of “inclusion” only, ignoring the exceptions of “exclusion”. Second, the geographical description has no exceptions, because the words “excluding so and so” are a necessary integral part of the very geographical description! If I tell you: “Please call me up whenever you want, except at night”, then my request contains no exceptions, because the very words “except at night” are an integral part of the whole request! I simply ask you to talk to me before the night, and I also ask you not to talk to me at night, and the combination of these two parts of my request constitutes the whole request, and this (whole) request has no exceptions! So this is the same thing with the geographical description: the whole geographical description has two necessary parts! For instance, the two parts of the Oceanian (geographical) description are as follows: the first part determines that New Zealand is not to be included in List A, while the other part determines that all of the other Oceanian states (like Papua New Guinea etc.) are to be included in List A, and these two parts of the Oceanian (geographical) description constitute the whole Oceanian (geographical) description! So now you must decide whether the economic+geographical description has exceptions or not! If it has exceptions, then the geographical description is far better, because it's intended to have no exceptions (as I explained above), whereas if the economic+geographical description doesn't have exceptions, so all of the special cases of the economic+geographical description (whether the special cases of “inclusion” or of “exclusion”) are an integral necessary part of the whole economic+geographical description, thus making this description long and far less compact than the geographical description.

• ”in the economic+geographical - they [=the exceptions] are simple”.

Simple but long, while any complex part of the geographical description is not only complex but also is compact. Furthermore, For encyclopedias (whether paper encyclopedias or online encyclopedias), the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compactness.

• ”since the commonality between the states of the lists is based on both geographical and economical grounds, not on geographical only”.

If your claim quoted above is intended to answer the question WHY the organization of UNIDO decided to separate the countries this way, then you must give a source (e.g. From UNIDO documents and likewise) for this claim! Anyway, the exceptions of the commonality you claim to have found (with no source yet), are formulated in a far longer formulation than the formulation by which the geographical description (including its “excluding so and so” notes) is formulated.

• ”11-14 groups nested in 1-5 levels”.

11 groups only, and 4 levels only, as I thoroughly explained in my previous response.

• ”convoluted complex mess”.

Notice that (as I've explained in my last previous responses), the geographical description doesn't contain a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes, so it's neither “convoluted” nor is it a “mess” (as you've called it), but rather it's “complex” only, while the economical+geographical description must contain “exclusion” notes, as well as “inclusion” notes (although the economical+geographical version of the article ignores these special cases of “exclusion”).

• ”enables the reader to extract the full information by reading few words only + having to go trough...11...groups nested in...levels + obviously needing 'pen and paper' to do this”.

First, not every reader needs a pen and paper, unless they don't know by heart the full list of USSR countries and the full list of CoE countries and the full list of UNIDO countries and so on. Second, a need for a pen and for a paper and for going through 11 groups and 4 levels, just proves that the description is complex, but this need has never constituted a disadvantage in encyclopedias (whether paper encyclopedias or online encyclopedias), just as it has never constituted a disadvantage in science nor in legal studies nor in linguistics et cetera. Third, any reader who doesn't wish to use compact complex encyclopedic formulas, may use a full list of countries, which I never disqualified. However, we will also have to add a short exact compact description, as a permanently visible encyclopedic description, for whoever wants to avoid reading 94 names of countries that belong to List A, and so on.

• ”In contrast the full-list variant requires 'only' to click on the show button”.

I've never rejected the idea of adding a hide-show button for seeing the full list! On the contrary! Once you suggested this idea, I made it clear that I don't reject such an idea!

• ”the 'long additions in small letters' are, unlike the geographical exclusion notes, just an exact list of the member states - no need to extract information and to solve logical equations like 'if X is a member of Y, then remove the rest-of-Y members from Z, etc, etc.' - the information is presented directly”.

What you claim is that the 'long additions in small letters' are simple, rather than complex, and I've always agreed with you about this point, so why do you repeat it? However, for encyclopedias (whether paper encyclopedias or online encyclopedias), the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compactness! Additionally, how about a reader who doesn't want to go through reading 94 names of countries that belong to List A (and so on) but rather wants to get the full information by reading the shortest most compact description (if any exists, whether complex or not)? If you agree with me about this fair symmetric principle, i.e. that the article must consider both kinds of readers, then I don't think there should be any debate between us.

• ”Basically you propose that instead of pictures we put in the articles ZIP-files containing the pictures - anybody can download, decompress and view the pictures, no information is lost, but it is just easier to simply use the pictures themselves”.

I don't propose this! What I do propose, is that compact definitions like “young male human” (for a boy), should be preferred to listing the names of all boys in the world. For more details about this boy-example and about the relation between it and our case, see my previous response. The difference - between ZIP files - and compact definitions (whether simple ones like “young male human”, or more complex ones like the geographical description) is a clear difference: Nobody can see the picture hidden in the ZIP file, unless they use an external instrument which can decompress the file, while, there are some readers who need no external instruments for knowing what the words: “young” and “male” and “human” mean, because they've already known, by heart, the full meaning of those three words, and now they wish to be assisted by Wikipedia for knowing what the word “boy” means ! So this is the same with the geographical description: there are some readers who already know by heart the full list of USSR countries and the full list of CoE countries and the full list of UNIDO countries and so on, and now they want Wikipedia to help them know what the expression “UNIDO's List A” means, by using their head only, with no external instruments, e.g an external software for decompressing ZIP files, or a pen or a paper! Do you really think that every reader needs a pen and paper for solving equations whose “levels” contain exclusion notes only (rather than a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes as needed in the economical+geographical description)?

• ”yes, the description 'of all American pacific countries' should be in the lead of the article, but somewhere below there should be a list of the members. Because this is what many of the readers would look for anyway, they don't need puzzles to solve, they don't need to have to look in 10-20 other articles”.

If you agree that the article should contain also the compact description 'all American pacific countries', for those readers who wish to get the full information by reading the shortest most compact description, then how about a reader who doesn't want to go through reading all names of countries that belong to List A (and so on), but rather wants to get the full information by reading the shortest most compact description (if any exists, whether complex or not)? If you agree with me about this fair symmetric principle, i.e. that the article must consider both kinds of readers, then I don't think there should be any debate between us.

• ”the obvious solution is to just list the states, without any descriptions”.

It's not the “obvious” solution, because listing 94 members for List A and so on, is far longer than the thirty-word (complex) description for List A and so on. Just as listing billions of names of boys who line on earth is not an “obvious” solution, instead of the compact definition “young male human”, for the concept of boy.

• ”This is the most WP:verifiable anyway”.

Also the definition “young male human” (for the concept of boy) is WP:verifiable, and also the geographical description (for the four UNIDO lists) is WP:verifiable. Further, not only is it WP:verifiable, but it's also the shortest most compact description, so it's recommended in encyclopedias (whether paper encyclopedias or online encyclopedias), because for encyclopedias, the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compactness.

• ”in some other paragraph, outside of the lists, the issues of geographical and economical commonality between list members can be explained”.

I've never rejected more explanations. However, if they intend to answer the question WHY the organization of UNIDO decided to separate the countries this way, then such explanations will need to be accompanied by a source (e.g. from UNIDO documents and likewise). Additionally, any kind of fully listing all of the members in a given list, is regarded (whether in paper encyclopedias or in online encyclopedias) as a second priority, the first priority being the shortest most compact description (whether complex or not), which supplies the full information about the countries that belong to a given list (without having to go through reading a long list of 94 of names of countries for List A, and so on).

• ”it [=explaining the issue of geographical and economical commonality, in some other paragraph] is better than the unnecessary complex notes proposed”.

Those complex notes, which constitute an integral part of the geographical description, are not “unnecessary”, but rather are recommended (whether in paper encyclopedias or in online encyclopedias), because such complex notes are intended to give the full information in the shortest most compact encyclopedic way.

• ”The current variant has only a few 'special case' notes”.

You must decide whether the economic+geographical description has exceptions or not! If it has exceptions, then the geographical description is far better, because it's intended to have no exceptions (as I explained above, when I discussed the example about the Oceanian countries excluding New Zealand), whereas if the economic+geographical description doesn't have exceptions, so all of the “special cases” of the economic+geographical description (whether the special cases of “inclusion” or of “exclusion”) are an integral necessary part of the whole economic+geographical description, thus making this description long and far less compact than the geographical description.

• ”these are not lists in itself, do not contain multiple nested groups, etc. these are individual (concerning only the state where they are put) simple statements like 'considered developed', if the commonality of its group is 'developing' or vice-versa. E.g. only a few STATES are exceptions (no groups, no levels) - in contrast to the other variant... including complex arrangements with multiple nested levels”.

All of the special cases mentioned in the article by the economical+geographical description, are “inclusion” cases, while the geographical description has no special cases of inclusion! Additionally, you've ignored all of the multiple special cases that have to be excluded from the primary part of the economical+geographical description, which “forgets” to mention them in the article! Additionally, you've ignored the fact that the geographical description, too, can avoid the multiple nested groups, by simply listing the special cases! For example, it ascribes to List A eight special cases, all of which are excluded from Asia/Oceania: 3 Asian countries, 1 Oceanian country, and 4 borderline countries between Asia and Europe. How many special cases does the geographical+economical description have for List A? First, you have to include 2 UNIDO developed economies in Asia, then you have to exclude 5 developing-economies/transition-economies being UNIDO members, which are also borderline countries between Asia and Europe, and also to exclude 3 Asian developing-economies/transition-economies which are not UNIDO countries at all, and also to exclude 9 Oceanian countries which are not UNIDO countries at all. All in all, for List A the geographical+economical description has 19 special cases, while the geographical description has 8 special cases only, which can be reduced to 3 only (or 6 if we consider also the three "unassigned" UNIDO members), by simply changing the category of "Africa + Oceania (excluding NZ) + Asia (excluding so and so)", to the category of "African + Asian Groups of UN", thus making also List B ( = the UN WEOG group) have 2 special cases only, with List C ( = the UN Eastern European group) and List D ( = the UN GRULAC group) having no special cases. Additionally, the economical+geographical description doesn't separate its necessary part (e.g. the special cases), from its unnecessary part (e.g. the rest of the full list), thus confusing any reader who doesn't want to go through reading 94 names of countries that belong to List A (and so on), but rather wants to get the full information by reading the shortest most compact description (if any exists, whether complex or not).

Eliko (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I will refrain, for the moment, to revert, but I don't agree with your assertions that your changes were discussed and agreed. The sequence of events was: I added (not changed/deleted) a section describing the UNIDO membership lists. You changed it (without discussion - the comment it the edit line is about the citation-flag. That flag according to your explanations above seems unnecessary for descriptions). I started this discussion here. Then, I made the exact lists version (with the hope that it will be non-controversial). The lists are sourced, but you deleted them. If you insist on putting geographical-only instead of geographical-economical descriptions - why don't you do this without deleting the sourced material?

I won't argue about how we 'call' things. Whether footnotes are called 'inclusion', 'exclusion', 'exception', 'note' or something else is irrelevant. The fact is that in one case we have unnecessary complex and convoluted description combined with notes and in the other case we have simple description (and more informative as it takes into account the economic factor) and simple notes.

Having or not having the full list is a totally separate issue. It should remain in both cases, as it is the most correct and fullest way of representing the information. Any issues of lenght/etc. are avoided by using the [show]-buttons.

Please, without quoting my comments, would you explain why the complex convoluted geographical-only descriptions are better than the simple geographic+economic ones?

I really don't understand what you want to achieve. I assume that you aren't suggesting that a complex description is preferable in a case, where simpler description can be applied. I assume that you don't question the fact that 'almost all' of List A/B/C/D have this-or-that economy type. I assume that you are not opposed to having the exact lists hidden with [show] buttons. So, does the problem boil down to your understanding that, even when we have the full list of states, the short descriptions should be exhaustive - and at the same time you are opposed to having the full list of states, if it is not hidden?

So, it seems you say: "as economic+geographic descriptions are not exhaustive - for completeness they 'rely' on a few footnotes in the exact lists - the exact lists should be considered part of the descriptions. Thus they should be considered "aways visible" - as the descriptions are incomplete otherwise. In that way the exhaustiveness required is achieved, but by showing the full lists you encounter my other opposing stance - to show the full list of states. I oppose that because they are too long."

I don't agree with both assumed stances. I think that: the descriptions should not be exhaustive by themselves - especially when we have the full lists (regardless if aways visible, or with [show]); there is nothing wrong with having the full lists, on the contrary - it is better to have them - especially in the hidden/[show] form, when they don't add clutter.

Anyway, if that is the problem I propose the following - "As of October 2010, 173[1] States are Members of UNIDO and they are divided into four lists [7]: A with the 'Countries from Africa, Asia and Oceania with developing or transition economies (plus Israel and South Korea) [show,list,footnotes]', B with the 'Countries with developed economies (including Turkey) [show,list,footnotes]', C with the 'Countries from the Americas with developing economies (including Chile)[show,list,footnotes]', D with the 'Countries from Europe with developing or transition economies (plus Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) [show,list,footnotes]'". Alinor (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• ”Please, without quoting my comments”.

I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't avoid that, because I must be as clear as possible.

• ”I don't agree with your assertions that your changes were discussed and agreed”.

I didn't assert that my changes were agreed; they were not, just as your changes were not agreed. However, all of my changes were discussed, whether on the edit line (if your previous change was not discussed on the discussion page), or on the discussion page. My claim was that I had never reverted your version before I fully discussed (on the discussion page) every one of your points you'd raised on the discussion page.

• ”The sequence of events was: I added (not changed/deleted) a section describing the UNIDO membership lists. You changed it (without discussion - the comment in the edit line is about the citation-flag. That flag according to your explanations above seems unnecessary for descriptions)”.

You didn't describe the sequence of events correctly:

1. All began on 3 August, when you added four lists, for which you supplied no source, although such a source was needed for approving the very claim that UNIDO really divides the countries into four lists, and that UNIDO really recognizes the very existence of the separation of all countries by four lists. Although these unsourced lists were accompanied by a citation flag, you didn't try to back your addition about the very existence of the separation of all countries by four lists.

2. Two weeks later, those lists still remained unsourced, although they really needed such a source (as I explained above) and although they were accompanied by a citation flag, so I deleted this unsourced information, on 17 August, i.e. two weeks after it was added, explaining my deletion on the summary line, as following: delete, because this is not backed by any source, after the old request for source was not complied with. Notice that there was no need to discuss this deletion on the discussion page, because there was no on-going discussion on the discussion page at this stage, and because this deletion was already discussed on the summary line.

3. Ten days later, i.e. on 27 August, you returned the lists, with the citation flag, and again without a source for the very existence of the separation of all countries by lists. Additionally, you wrote on the discussion page (on the same day, i.e. on 27 August): “Until we find such sources I propose those tags to remain”.

4. I adopted your suggestion: the lists with the citation-tags remained there (as you'd proposed on the discussion page) for a few hours, i.e. until I found a source for the very existence of the separation of all countries by four lists!

5. Once I found (some hours later on the same day of 27 August) such a source, which really approves the very claim that UNIDO divides the countries into four lists, and that UNIDO recognizes the very existence of the separation of all countries by four lists, I replaced the unsourced version (based on the economical+geographical description), by a sourced version (based on the geographical description), with the following summary line: “I've found the source”. Note that your comment of 27 August (mentioned above) on the discussion page had not referred to the need for an economical+geographical description, but rather referred to your suggestion of leaving the lists with the citation flag until a source was found, and note also that I fully adopted this suggestion you had proposed on the discussion page (some hours before), so I didn't have to discuss anything on the discussion page! Note also that, really, both versions (the sourced one as well as the unsourced one), still needed some corrections (because both of them didn't mention some special cases), but besides those needed corrections, the new version (based on the geographical description) was still much better than the previous version (based on the economical+geographical description), in two aspects: First, the new one was sourced, whereas the previous one was unsourced (although it needed a source as I explained above); Second, the new version was shorter more compact.

• ”I started this discussion here”.

You started a discussion on the discussion page about the need for the economical+geographical description, on 18 September. Once you started such a discussion on the discussion page, I'd changed nothing in the description of the four lists, before I responded to each one of the points you'd raised on the discussion page about this issue.

• ”I made the exact lists version (with the hope that it will be non-controversial). The lists are sourced, but you deleted them”.

Now you're talking about a very late stage, i.e. about the day of 4 October, when I replaced an economical+geographical version by a geographical version, but note that I made this replacement only after I discussed it on the discussion page, and only after I explicitly indicated on the summary line: “See discussion page”.

• ”If you insist on putting geographical-only instead of geographical-economical descriptions - why don't you do this without deleting the sourced material?”

Every deletion was discussed specifically and thoroughly, as I described above. Could you be more specific? Which versions are you talking about?

• ”in one case we have unnecessary complex...description”.

Not “unnecessary”, but rather recommended (whether in paper encyclopedias or in online encyclopedias), because such a complex description is intended to give the full information in the shortest most compact encyclopedic way.

• ”in one case we have...complex and convoluted description”.

Notice that (as I've explained in my last previous responses), the geographical description doesn't contain a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes, so it's not “convoluted” (as you've called it), but rather it's “complex” only, while the economical+geographical description must contain “exclusion” notes, as well as “inclusion” notes (although the economical+geographical version of the article ignores these special cases of “exclusion”).

• ”in the other case we have...description (...more informative as it takes into account the economic factor)”.

What do you mean by “factor”? If you mean that this is a factor which explains WHY the organization of UNIDO decided to separate the countries this way, then you must give a source (e.g. From UNIDO documents and likewise) for this claim! However, if you just mean that List D (for example) comprises all transition countries, and so on, then this information is unnecessary for covering all countries which belong to a given list: notice that the geographical description does cover every country in the world, so this geographical description supplies the full information for letting the reader know exactly which country belongs to a given list. Any additional information about (e.g.) List D countries, being transition economies and likewise, is irrelevant for covering all those countries, whereas the fact of (e.g.) their being transition economies, can anyway be extracted from the relevant articles in Wikipedia, e.g. the article about Central and Eastern Europe, or from the article about transition economies, and likewise.

• ”in the other case we have simple description...and simple notes”.

I agree that it's simple, but it's neither short nor compact. For encyclopedias (whether paper encyclopedias or online encyclopedias), the level of complexity is much less important than the level of compactness.

• ”Having or not having the full list is a totally separate issue. It should remain in both cases, as it is the most correct and fullest way of representing the information. Any issues of length/etc. are avoided by using the [show]-buttons”.

I've never rejected the idea of adding full lists (even visible permanently, with no buttons), mainly for readers who don't want to go through complex (compact) formulations. However, as I've explained in my previous response, it's recommended that the article contain also the shortest most compact description (if any exists, whether complex or not), mainly for readers who don't want to go through reading 94 names of countries that belong to List A and so on. Additionally: not only should such a description be short and compact, it should also be exhaustive, so it should fulfill the four following conditions: 1. It should cover all countries belonging to a given list. 2. It shouldn't insert a country into a wrong list. 3. It should be separated from the full list, so that, reading the full list wouldn't be necessary for knowing which country belongs to the list and which country doesn't belong to the list. 4. It should be the shortest most compact description that fulfills the previous three conditions.

• ”would you explain why the complex convoluted geographical-only descriptions...”

Notice that (as I've explained in my last previous responses), the geographical-only description doesn't contain a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes, so it's not “convoluted” (as you've called it), but rather it's “complex” only, while the economical+geographical description must contain “exclusion” notes, as well as “inclusion” notes (although the economical+geographical version of the article ignores these special cases of “exclusion”).

• ”would you explain why the complex...geographical-only descriptions are better than the simple geographic+economic ones?”

Yes, because of the following reason: on one hand, the geographical+economical description doesn't add information more than the geographical-only description does (as I explained above in the paragraph in which I referred to the example of List D), whereas, on the other hand, the geographical+economical description doesn't fulfill all four conditions mentioned above, while the geographical-only description does fulfill all of them.

• ”I really don't understand what you want to achieve”.

Whereas I, do understand what you want to achieve, because I've read your thoughts (aici este un indiciu: when you decided to add the four lists according to the economical+geographical description, it was mainly because of List D, and you were thinking about a country, whose name begins with the letter M, and whose inhabitants understand the word “indiciu”. As to me, I support the idea of classifying this country as a transition economy, because it's really a transition economy rather than a developing one; However, this piece of information is irrelevant to the article, as I explained above in the paragraph in which I referred to the example of List D).

• ”I assume that you aren't suggesting that a complex description is preferable in a case, where simpler description can be applied”.

Unless the complex description is more compact than the simpler one.

• ”I assume that you don't question the fact that 'almost all' of List A/B/C/D have this-or-that economy type”.

No I don't. However, this piece of information is irrelevant to the article, as I explained above in the paragraph in which I referred to the example of List D.

• ”I assume that you are not opposed to having the exact lists hidden with [show] buttons”.

I'm even not opposed to having the exact lists permanently visible with no buttons. However, as I've explained (above and in my previous response), it's recommended that the article contain also the shortest most compact description (if any exists, whether complex or not), mainly for readers who don't want to go through reading 94 names of countries that belong to List A and so on. Additionally: not only should such a description be short and compact, it should also be exhaustive, so it should fulfill the four following conditions: 1. It should cover all countries belonging to a given list. 2. It shouldn't insert a country into a wrong list. 3. It should be separated from the full list, so that, reading the full list wouldn't be necessary for knowing which country belongs to the list and which country doesn't belong to the list. 4. It should be the shortest most compact description that fulfills the previous three conditions.

• ”does the problem boil down to your understanding that, even when we have the full list of states, the short descriptions should be exhaustive - and at the same time you are opposed to having the full list of states, if it is not hidden?”

I'm not opposed to having the full lists even permanently visible, with no buttons, providing that the article fulfills the four conditions indicated in the previous paragraph.

• ”So, it seems you say: 'as economic+geographic descriptions are not exhaustive - for completeness they 'rely' on a few footnotes in the exact lists - the exact lists should be considered part of the descriptions...as the descriptions are incomplete otherwise. In that way the exhaustiveness required is achieved, but by...the full list of states. I oppose that because they are too long'...”.

Yes, you can formulate that this way as well, but without the requirement of hiding the lists, because I'm not opposed to having the full lists even permanently visible, providing that the article fulfills the “four conditions” mentioned above.

• ”I don't agree with both assumed stances”.

So we will have to reach a compromise, because I don't think either one of us is superior to the other (and I'm now referring mainly to myself).

• ”I think that: the descriptions should not be exhaustive by themselves - especially when we have the full lists”.

Whereas I think that the article should consider both kinds of readers: On one hand, it's recommended that the article provide full lists for readers who don't want to go through complex (compact) formulations; On the other hand, it's also recommended that the article contain the shortest most compact description (if any exists, whether complex or not), mainly for readers who don't want to go through reading 94 names of countries that belong to List A and so on. Additionally: not only should such a description be short and compact, it should also be exhaustive, so it should fulfill the four following conditions: 1. It should cover all countries belonging to a given list. 2. It shouldn't insert a country into a wrong list. 3. It should be separated from the full list, so that, reading the full list wouldn't be necessary for knowing which country belongs to the list and which country doesn't belong to the list. 4. It should be the shortest most compact description that fulfills the previous three conditions.

• ”there is nothing wrong with having the full lists, on the contrary - it is better to have them - especially in the hidden/[show] form, when they don't add clutter”.

I'm not opposed to having the full lists, whether hidden or permanently visible, providing that the article fulfills the four conditions indicated in the previous paragraph.

• ”A, with the Countries from Africa, Asia and Oceania with developing or transition economies (plus Israel and South Korea) [show,list,footnotes]”.

You must decide whether this description is intended to put in List A all countries fulfilling your condition. If your answer is “no”, then this description is not full: it doesn't let the reader know whether (e.g.) China belongs to this list, and this is the same with any other Asian/African/Oceanian non-developed country. However, If your answer is “yes”, then this description is simply incorrect and misleads the reader! E.g. it makes readers (who don't want to go through reading 94 names) think that Armenia is included in this list, and also makes them doubt whether this list contains also four borderline countries whose most areas are in Asia (i.e. Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, and Turkey).

• ”B, with the Countries with developed economies (including Turkey) [show,list,footnotes]”.

You must decide whether this description is intended to put in List B all countries fulfilling your condition. If your answer is “no”, then this description is not full: it doesn't let the reader know whether (e.g.) France belongs to this list, and this is the same with any other developed country. However, If your answer is “yes”, then this description is simply incorrect and misleads the reader! E.g. it makes readers (who don't want to go through reading the full list) think that this list contains also: Czech Republic, Israel, Slovakia, Slovenia, and South Korea.

• ”C, with the 'Countries from the Americas with developing economies (including Chile) [show,list,footnotes]”.

No need to add the comment about Chile. Do you know of any celebrated international institution that classifies Chile as a developed country?

• ”D, with the 'Countries from Europe with developing or transition economies (plus Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) [show,list,footnotes]”.

No need to add the words “developing or”, since every state in List D is classified in Wikipedia as a Transition economy, isn't it?

By the way, now I see that the geographical description doesn't have to indicate, that all UNIDO members are presently UN members, because it's already indicated in the article that countries with “limited recognition” (hence all countries which are not UN members, excluding the Holy See), are not UNIDO members. Therefore, it's also redundant and needless to mention Cook Islands, and Niue (whether according to the geographical description or according to the economical+geographical description).

Eliko (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My initial addition of the lists and map included this link. On this page it is pretty obvious that there are "Member States according to lists" and "Former members". I used this link as the "combined starting point" for all types of UNIDO lists. So it wasn't unsourced in any way. OK, the reference could be presented better, but anyway - it was there.

I assume that with the "List D country with starting with M, whose residents ..." you make some joke, but I tried to follow the description with pen and paper and couldn't extract the country name.

"we will have to reach a compromise" - you don't act like that. First, you remove sourced content, only because you haven't looked properly at the source provided. Then, you implement changes without any discussion over substance (on talk page or discussion line).

Now on subject.

First some quick notes on the comments you made on the last proposal above:

"Do you know of any celebrated international institution that classifies Chile as a developed country?" - on the bottom of the article you linked there is a list including Chile. I don't know if it's from a celebrated institution, but as it is in the article - I included this note.

"every state in List D is classified in Wikipedia as a Transition economy, isn't it?" - no, it isn't - read the article you linked: "... Czech Republic, ..., Slovakia, Slovenia have completed the transition process.[10]".

I am glad that we agree that the full lists should be in the article. Why had you deleted them then? [3]

"the descriptions should not be exhaustive by themselves - especially when we have the full lists". You don't agree with that. I don't think that duplicating the full lists with some shorter (but complexer) descriptions is advisable, but I don't object if you put such "short" descriptions in a place "separated from the full list" (point3 of your requirements).

Any information should be written comprehensively. It is dubious if your description with 11-14 groups nested in 4-5 levels is such. Anyway, I won't object inclusion of such convoluted descriptions - if they are "separated from the full list". I would also suggest adding some clarification about what of the multiple WEs you refer to.

And what about CI/Niue? They aren't mentioned in either variant of descriptions of List A/B/C/D that we discuss here. What do you mean by "it's also redundant and needless to mention Cook Islands, and Niue"? Alinor (talk) 07:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I implemented the above - I put the geographical-only, presumably "enough for some readers" first - so that readers that don't want to look trough the full lists encounter the exhaustive descriptions first. Of course we can arrange it in the opposite way - if you want the geographical-only descriptions to be in the second place. Alinor (talk) 07:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• ”My initial addition of the lists and map included this link. On this page it is pretty obvious that there are Member States according to lists and Former members”.

Not only doesn't that page show which country belongs to a given list of the four, but also it doesn't indicate the very existence of four lists.

• ”I used this link as the 'combined starting point' for all types of UNIDO lists. So it wasn't unsourced in any way. OK, the reference could be presented better, but anyway - it was there.”.

The idea of “combined links” may be used for exacts links. The very idea of “starting point” link, is weak and dubious (though forgivable in some circumstances), because as a “starting point” you could also use Google link, and likewise. Though weak and dubious, it could be forgivable, had this “starting point” link been attached also to the unsourced statement about the four links. However, the link you are talking about was not linked to the claim “Members are divided into four lists”, but rather to the statement “173 states are members of UNIDO”, while the statement about the four link had no link: neither an exact link nor a “starting point” link.

• ”I assume that with the List D country with starting with M, whose residents ..., you make some joke, but I tried to follow the description with pen and paper and couldn't extract the country name”.

Două întrebări: 1. Which names of Transition countries start with M? 2. Which residents of Transition countries understand the word “indiciu” (as well as the words două întrebări)? No pen and paper is needed for knowing that.

• ”we will have to reach a compromise - you don't act like that. First, you remove sourced content, only because you haven't looked properly at the source provided”.

As I explained above, it's not a proper link (even not a proper “starting point” link, nor a proper “combined” link).

• ”you implement changes without any discussion over substance (on talk page or discussion line)”.

It seems like you haven't read my thorough description of the sequence of events. As I explained thoroughly in my previous response, I never implemented changes before I discussed them, whether on the summary line (if your previous change was not discussed on the discussion page), or on the discussion page. In my previous response I proved this, by referring specifically to the sequence of events and to every relevant diff of version of the article. Could you be more specific, by giving the exact diffs which apparently prove your claim about my changes I hadn't discussed first?

• ”on the bottom of the article you linked there is a list including Chile”.

The list you're talking about isn't about “developed countries”, and the editor who added this list to the article “Developed country”, didn't intend to claim this list reflected the list pf developed countries, but rather did that for a completely another reason: to claim that the list of UN “developed countries” (mentioned in a previous paragraph of that article) is “rather similar” (though not identical) to the list of 30 top countries of high quality of life, according to Newsweek's survey of 2010. How do I know that this was what that editor meant? Because I've read their thoughts. How? The editor who added Newsweek's 30-country-list to the article was me...

• ”every state in List D is classified in Wikipedia as a Transition economy, isn't it?" - no, it isn't - read the article you linked: "... Czech Republic, ..., Slovakia, Slovenia have completed the transition process”.

Remember that, when I claimed: “every state in List D is classified in Wikipedia as a transition economy”, I was referring to your following statement: “D, with the 'Countries from Europe with developing or transition economies (plus Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia) [show,list,footnotes]”. So, when I wrote “every state in List D is classified in Wikipedia as a transition economy”, I meant (though without enough clarification) that “every state in List D [excluding those you indicated explicitly in the citation mentioned above] is a transition economy”, so (I claimed) you could omit the words “developing or” from your description of List D. So let me ask you again, and now more explicitly: Don't you agree that the words “developing or” (in your description of List D quoted above) are needless, because “every state in List D [excluding those you indicated explicitly in your description of List D quoted above] is a transition economy”?

• ”I am glad that we agree that the full lists should be in the article. Why had you deleted them then?”

Let me explain why I deleted them, and I'm sure you will eventually figure out: As I've already pointed out in my previous responses, although I think that the idea of adding full lists (wherever compact encyclopedic descriptions are available) is not an advisable idea in encyclopedias, I still have never rejected the (inadvisable) idea of adding such full lists (even visible permanently, with no buttons), for considering also those readers who don't want to cope with complex (compact encyclopedic) descriptions. However, as I've explained in my previous response, it's recommended that the article contain also the shortest most compact exhaustive description (if any exists, whether complex or not). This compact exhaustive description should fulfill four conditions, remember? The third one was as following: “It [i.e. the compact exhaustive description] should be separated from the full list, so that, reading the full list wouldn't be necessary for knowing which country belongs to the list and which country doesn't belong to the list”. Had the economical+geographical version of the article had two clear parts, clearly separated from each other, then the part of the full lists would have been edited properly, i.e. without footnotes at all, and then I would have left this proper part (i.e. the full list, without needless footnotes), and would have replaced the other part by a better one (i.e. by the geographical-only description). However, unfortunately, the economical+geographical version didn't separate the full list from the economical+geographical description, but rather combined the description along with the full list, with “necessary” footnotes in the full list, so that reading the full list was still necessary for knowing exactly which country belongs to the list and which country doesn't belong to the list; therefore, when the economical+geographical version of the article was replaced by the better geographical-only version, the whole assembly (having no separated parts) had unfortunately to be replaced, as a whole. However, as I've already stated in my previous responses, I don't reject the very (inadvisable) idea of adding full lists, once such full lists are well separated from the compact description, without needless footnotes.

• ”I don't think that duplicating the full lists with some shorter (but complexer) descriptions is advisable”.

This is the same with me: I don't think that, duplicating the encyclopedic short (but more complex) descriptions with the full lists, is advisable in encyclopedias (whether paper encyclopedias or online encyclopedias).

• ”I don't object if you put such 'short' descriptions in a place separated from the full list”.

This is the same with me: for being fair enough with readers who don't want to face complex (compact) formulations, I wouldn't object the (inadvisable) idea of putting the full list in a place separated from the short exhaustive description.

• ”Any information should be written comprehensively”.

I agree.

• ”your description with 11-14 groups...”.

As I've explained in one of my previous responses, it's 11 groups only, rather than 11-14 groups. Further, as I explained at the bottom of my previous response, also the group of UN can be omitted from those eleven, because it's already indicated in the article that UNIDO members don't include any country with “limited recognition” (hence any country which is not a UN member, excluding the Holy See). So we remain with 10 groups only. Further, at the bottom of my response that preceded my last response, I also clarified how the geographical description of List A can be simplified even more, mentioning one group only (with 3 special cases only, or 6 if we would like to consider also the three “unassigned” UNIDO members).

• ”your description with...groups nested in 4-5 levels...”.

As I've explained in one of my previous responses, it's 4 levels, rather than 4 -5 levels. Further, at the bottom of my response that preceded my last response, I also clarified how the geographical description of List A can be more simplified, using 1-2 levels only (i.e. by mentioning one group only, with 3 special cases only, or 6 if we would like to consider also the three “unassigned” UNIDO members).

• ”It is dubious if your description with 11...groups nested in 4...levels is such [=comprehensible]”.

It's really comprehensible, providing that the readers are not tired, and are trying to understand what they're reading. Note also that the geographical-only description has exclusion notes only, without any inclusion note, so even tired readers can comprehend it quite well (providing that they're really trying to). Note also that, as I've pointed out above, the geographical description can be simplified more, mentioning one group only (with 3 special cases only, or 6 if we would like to consider also the three “unassigned” UNIDO members).

• ”I won't object inclusion of such convoluted descriptions - if they are separated from the full list”.

Notice that (as I've explained in my last previous responses), the geographical description doesn't contain a mix of exclusion-inclusion notes, so it's not “convoluted” (as you've called it), but rather is “complex” only.

• ”I would also suggest adding some clarification about what of the multiple WEs you refer to”.

No such clarification is needed, because the words “Western Europe” sends the reader to a direct link (which originally referred to the present time, despite the original wrong way of ordering the chapters ibid., and despite your having recently made it artificially refer to the Cold War). Anyways, as I have already indicated at the bottom of my response that preceded my last response, the geographical description of List B can be simplified even more, by changing the link of WE to a simpler link: that of WEOG (with 2 special cases only).

• ”And what about CI/Niue? They aren't mentioned in either variant of descriptions of List A/B/C/D that we discuss here”.

Yes, and I indicated that myself ! Let me quote myself:

“By the way, now I see that...it's already indicated in the article that countries with 'limited recognition' (hence all countries which are not UN members, excluding the Holy See), are not UNIDO members. Therefore, it's also redundant and needless to mention Cook Islands, and Niue (whether according to the geographical description or according to the economical+geographical description)”.

Note that this comment wasn't referring to our main issue, i.e. to the four lists, but rather to an old issue, about the need to mention Cook Islands and Niue in the list of “not signed not ratified”.

• ”What do you mean by: 'it's also redundant and needless to mention Cook Islands, and Niue'?”

I mean that the article doesn't have to mention them in the list of “not signed not ratified”, because this list already mentions the countries with “limited recognition” (hence all countries which are not UN members, excluding the Holy See).

• ”I implemented the above - I put the geographical-only, presumably 'enough for some readers' first - so that readers that don't want to look trough the full lists encounter the exhaustive descriptions first”.

Notice that, readers who look for full lists, can find their full lists, the footnotes being needless; Whereas readers who look for exhaustive compact description, may find it in the geographical-only description, rather than in the economical+geographical description, which is not an exhaustive compact one, since it explicitly indicates the word “primarily”, i.e. this description (when read without the full list) is not intended to be exhaustive. So, at this stage, the economical+geographical description is redundant and needless, isn't it? What kind of relevant information about the lists, which isn't able to be extracted from the full lists, does this description add? and for which readers? If, by this description, you intend to add the economical factor for explaining WHY the organization of UNIDO decided to separate the countries this way, then you must give a source (e.g. From UNIDO documents and likewise) for this claim! However, if you just want to inform that List D (for example) comprises all transition countries, and so on, then this piece of information is unnecessary for covering all countries which belong to a given list! Any additional information about (e.g.) List D countries, being transition economies and likewise, is irrelevant for covering all those countries, whereas the fact of (e.g.) their being transition economies, can anyway be extracted from the relevant articles in Wikipedia, e.g. From the article about Central and Eastern Europe, or from the article about transition economies, and likewise.

Eliko (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the link provided in my initial addition [4] points to a page containing the words "Member States according to lists" and "Former Member States" (both are also links to the relevant lists). So it is a good "central point"/single link containing simoultaneously both all members, lists members and former members. It was put near the begin of the membership addition - an appropriate place for such combined source link.

You made other ungrounded accusations and wrong statements in your comment above, but anyway, let's stick to the topic of the article content.

Yes, the word “primarily” indicates that the description following it is not intended to be exhaustive. No, it doesn't explain why the countries are arranged so. What information does it add then? The information about a common property that most of the countries in each list share. Not "all", that's why it has the word "primarily" (with footnotes for the few exceptions). As this is the "industrial development" organizations the level of economic development of the states is closely related and highly relevant to it.

Your leaning to compactness is astonishing. Do you think that everything should be mentioned only once in the whole Wikipedia? Of course many things can be extracted from other articles. The aim is not to have the most compact encyclopedia, but the most useful to the readers. Alinor (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• ”First, the link provided in my initial addition [5] points to a page containing the words 'Member States according to lists' and 'Former Member States'...”.

Yes, “according to links”; however, as I've explained in my previous response: “not only doesn't that page show which country belongs to a given list of the four, but also it doesn't indicate the very existence of four lists”.

• ”both are also links to the relevant lists. So it is a good 'central point'/single link containing simultaneously both all members, lists members and former members. It was put near the begin of the membership addition - an appropriate place for such combined source link”.

As I've explained in my previous response: You could have linked this single page to the beginning of the chapter, had this single page contained every piece of information included in the chapter. It could also be forgivable (though being weak and dubious), if you had used a link to a single page which contains other links to other pages that contain every piece of information included in the chapter, providing that you had attached this single link to every claim that needs a source. However, this wasn't what you have done.

• ”You made other ungrounded accusations”.

I've never accused you. Everything you've done is legitimate, as long as you discuss it on the discussion page, and you really discuss it, so it's legitimate. I don't remember I've ever accused you.

• ”You made other...wrong statements in your comment above”.

Which statement was wrong?

• ”the description...doesn't explain why the countries are arranged so. What information does it add then? The information about a common property that most of the countries in each list share”.

The role of articles in Wikipedia is to supply, most usefully, the “full” formal information about the formal topic with which the article deals. “Full” formal information, means: not less than “full”, but also not more than “full”. In our case, the issue is the four formal lists, so the role of the article is to inform which country belongs to a given formal list. Once the reader is informed which country belongs to a given list, the reader has got the full formal information. Any “extra” information, like other “common properties” of the members in a given list (besides the basic common property which lets the reader basically know which country belongs to a given list), is either irrelevant to the formal topic with which the article deals, or does not meet Wikipedia requirement of WP:OR, and should be avoided; Unless this kind of additional information is explicitly declared by the formal body (in our case: UNIDO) which has established those lists, in which case this kind of information should no longer be regarded as “extra” information, but rather as an integral part of the very formal information.

• ”As this is the 'industrial development' organization, the level of economic development of the states is closely related and highly relevant to it”.

This level of economic development is undoubtedly relevant to the topics dealt with by UNIDO. However, the speculation assuming that the level of economic development is also relevant to the way the four lists were determined by the UNIDO, doesn't constitute more than a speculation, unless it's backed by a formal source.

• ”Your leaning to compactness is astonishing”.

Why?

• ”Do you think that everything should be mentioned only once in the whole Wikipedia?”

No, every piece of information can be mentioned even more, as long as this piece of information is relevant to the article where it's mentioned.

• ”Of course many things can be extracted from other articles”.

Every piece of information can be mentioned in many articles, providing that this piece of information is relevant to the article where it's mentioned.

• ”The aim is not to have the most compact encyclopedia”.

I didn't state that this is the aim. The aim is to supply, most usefully, the “full” formal information about the formal topic with which the article deals. “Full” formal information, means: not less than “full”, but also not more than “full”, as I explained above (with more reference to our issue, see above). Furthermore, it's recommended that every piece of information be presented in the most compact way. Anyways, anything “beyond” the full formal information, is either speculative, thus violating Wikipedia requirement of WP:OR, or irrelevant to the topic (as I explained above when referring to your claim about UNIDO being an 'industrial development' organization).

• ”The aim is...to have...the most useful to the readers”.

The aim is to supply, most usefully, the “full” formal information about the formal topic with which the article deals. For more details for what this means, see above.

Eliko (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to improve the new compact description. Eliko (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Eliko (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you are correct in implying that the economical descriptions are OR (as they don't claim that UNIDO uses them as criteria - they just describe one of the features of the resulting lists), but anyway I rephrased them. Alinor (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the economical description is necessarilly OR. Let me quote myself again:

"anything 'beyond' the full formal information, is either speculative, thus violating Wikipedia requirement of WP:OR, or irrelevant to the topic".

At this stage, you may ask: "Why is it irrelevant (if not speculative)?" So let me quote myself again:

"The role of articles in Wikipedia is to supply, most usefully, the 'full' formal information about the formal topic with which the article deals. 'Full' formal information, means: not less than 'full', but also not more than 'full'. In our case, the issue is the four formal lists, so the role of the article is to inform which country belongs to a given formal list. Once the reader is informed which country belongs to a given list, the reader has got the full formal information".

At this stage, you may ask: "Why isn't the economical topic relevant to an article about an organization dealing with economical issues?" So let me quote myself again:

"This level of economic development is undoubtedly relevant to the topics dealt with by UNIDO. However, the speculation assuming that the level of economic development is also relevant to the way the four lists were determined by the UNIDO, doesn't constitute more than a speculation".

Eliko (talk) 10:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)