Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 10, 2011

List of countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. It is accepted by most commentators that a 'country' is not necessarily synonymous with a 'sovereign state'; for example England is a country but the United Kingdom is the sovereign state. However, there were no convincing arguments against the likelihood that someone searching on 'List of countries' is likely to find the information they seek in List of sovereign states. For example, the entries for United Kingdom and Netherlands both clearly state their constituent countries. Any redirect to Lists of countries and territories is likely to prove annoying; someone wanting a 'List of countries' is hardly likely to want to fight their way through a long list of other lists. The proposed change, creating a disambiguation page has significant merit in that the searcher can select which page they think best meets their needs. Looking at the straw pool, however, and accepting that this is not a vote, their was a clear majority against the disambiguation proposal and the status quo had the most support with, significantly, no opposition. No doubt, the present complex series of lists need rationalisation, but that is a matter for future talk page discussion and is outside the scope of this RFD. Looking at the arguments for and against the nominator's proposal the weight of argument, and of commentators, is against his proposed request. Consequently, I am closing this as 'keep', NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change redirect into a dab page listing List of sovereign states and Lists of countries and territories, and any other likely targets, such as List of lists of national institutions and symbols. There has been some instability of this redirect with several attempts to point it at Lists of countries and territories or turn it into a dab page. There are several lists of countries with organisations counting countries differently. When someone is putting in a search for "lists of countries" it is likely they are looking for the lists of those organisations, such as United Nations, FIFA, IANA. List of sovereign states doesn't appear to be an official list. It has its own criteria for inclusion. Added to which a country is not always a sovereign state SilkTork *Tea time 23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone was searching for lists of countries wouldn't they search through the redirect Lists of countries? I would assume anyone searching for a singular is looking for a specific list, which the one of sovereign states is probably the most relevant. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the sovereign states the most relevant in your view? It doesn't appear to be an official list, and is not set up to be a list of countries, but of sovereign states. And looking at the talkpage history, the article's contents and inclusion criteria have been in dispute for some time. The list appears to be insecure and dubious. SilkTork *Tea time 23:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The most common meaning of "country" in English is "sovereign state". Indeed, in most dialects of English, "countries of the world" means just and only "sovereign states of the world". One looks on a list of countries for France, Germany, Congo, Brazil, Vietnam, etc., not for any other thing. In most English atlases, the "Countries of the World" list is exactly a list of sovereign states. Therefore, "List of countries" should be exactly what it is right now--a redirect to List of sovereign states and not anything else. Indeed, to have anything other than a list of sovereign states at List of countries would be confusing and a violation of WP:COMMONNAME. What else can a country be other than a sovereign state? --Taivo (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, only a small minority of English speakers think that "country" means anything other than "sovereign state". --Taivo (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The phrase has a variety of meanings, and I could cite piles of sources that use the word "country" to designate dependent territories, overseas countries and constituent countries, and by no means do they constitute a "small minority". United Nations lists that Silk alludes to are just one of many. The list was moved to List of sovereign states for a reason. Nightw 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it as is. It's the most fitting list we have and is therefore, most likely, the most common target of a search. There's a hatnote on the top of the page that redirects readers to Lists of countries and territories. Nightw 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article List of countries should be a list of countries, per WP:TITLE. The policy Deciding on an article title begins “Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by.” It is not our place to decide what is the most common meaning of a word. If reliable sources describe somewhere as a country, that place should be included on a list of countries. If editors refuse to allow the article to be based on a fundimental Wikipedia policy and choose instead to use their own POV, then List of countries should be a disambiguation page (as a poor second choice). What it should not be is a redirect to List of sovereign states. They are not synonymous. Daicaregos (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Daicaregos, it's not just a question of "what reliable sources say". There are multiple cases where one set of sources might say X and another set of equally reliable sources says Y. We have to make decisions in Wikipedia all the time. In this case, when one looks at reliable English language atlases, their "list of sovereign states" is most commonly called "Countries of the World" without reference to places that are not sovereign, like Scotland, etc. The redirect at List of countries should remain as a redirect to List of sovereign states since that is the most common usage in English atlases and what most English speakers are likely to be seeking. --Taivo (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not 'List of things Taivo someone saw in his atlas'. It is 'List of countries'. The policy reliable sources begins: “Wikipedia articles should be based on all reliable, published sources; and, majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).” I can provide you with dozens of reliable sources defining, calling or referring to countries that are not on 'List of sovereign states'. Daicaregos (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you keep civil, Daicaregos. And, in this case, atlases are one of the most common reliable sources. I'm looking at three atlases--two by Rand McNally and one by Hammond. All three use the term "country" to refer to sovereign states and not to subordinate entities. That's one of the most reliable ways we judge WP:COMMONNAME. As others have pointed out already here, nine out of ten readers are looking for sovereign states when they search for "countries of the world" and there are sufficient hatnotes for the few that are looking for a more obscure meaning of "country". --Taivo (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion. Please advise where I have not been civil. I note your reference to atlases as one of the most common reliable sources. I refer you back to the policy reliable sources which states articles should be based on all reliable, published sources. Please explain why you would choose to ignore that policy. I also note that no-one here has provided any evidence for the claim that nine out of ten readers are looking for sovereign states when they search for "countries of the world". Daicaregos (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has been incivil. I'm interested to know what atlases you were looking at, Taivo...? Just from looking online, Rand McNally does not use that definition in its lists. [1][2][3][4] Nightw 12:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take the "List of things Taivo saw in his atlas" as incivil. Keep the personal epithets out of this. Nightw, for example, Rand McNally Portrait World Atlas, 1998, pg. iv, "Political maps...emphasize countries and other political units over topography"; pg. 1, "Capitals: country, dependency"; pg. I-1, "Each name is followed by the name of the country...where it is located", "Country names and names of features that extend beyond the boundaries of one country...", "Country designations follow the names of all other places in the index.", etc. It is crystal clear that "country" means "sovereign state" because all places in the UK, no matter which so-called "country" they are found in, are listed as being in the "UK". There is not always a single list, but when reading the text, it's clear that "country" means sovereign state almost universally in atlases. Hammond Centennial World Atlas, 1999, tends to interchange "nation" and "country" as at pg. 10, "The living standards of less than two dozen highly industrialized nations....Though the developed countries...", but tends to used "country" in labels of tables as on pg. 10, "Worker Comparisons of Selected Countries" and "country" in describing the index, as on pg. 106, "Every name is followed by the country or area to which it belongs. Except for cities, towns, countries and cultural areas...." As with Rand McNally, the use of "country" unambiguously refers to "sovereign state" because all places in the UK are labelled as "UK". Rand McNally Deluxe Illustrated Atlas fo the World, 1991, also interchanges "nation" and "country" as at pg. A-2, "World Nations: This table gives the area, population...and location of every country in the world". On pg. A-10 it has tables labelled, "Largest Countries: Population", "Largest Countries: Area", "Smallest Countries: Population", "Smallest Countries: Area" and the index is also described on pg. A-12, "Each city name is followed by the English name of its country. Names in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada are further distinguished by the name of the state, region, or province in which they are located." That should sufficiently illustrated the exclusive usage of "country" to refer to "sovereign state" and not to any smaller units. All three of my atlases are in agreement. --Taivo (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nightw, there is a discussion going on right now at the Reliable Sources Talk Page about whether you can call something a reliable source if you haven't actually read it ;) All of your links are to Google Books entries and not to actual books so they are pretty worthless to answer this question without holding the book or at least being able to see all the pages of the book and read the actual comments that describe things like indexes, tables of "largest"/"smallest", etc. --Taivo (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to you, as you used my name, so I used yours. I had no intention of causing offence and have struck out your name. Please accept my apologies. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant how many atlases confuse sovereign states and countries. Or, indeed, if they have chosen to use just one of the word's meanings. The fact is that reliable source requires us to base articles on all reliable, published sources. I ask again: please explain why you would choose to ignore that policy. Daicaregos (talk) 14:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daiucaregos, you don't seem to understand the relationship of WP:RS to the issue you have presented here. At Wikipedia, our goal is usability as well as reliability. Usability requires us to use the names for things that our readers are seeking. Atlases are reliable sources for geographic terms and names as they guide us to the terms that our readers will be using to refer to entities. Just because an academic or Scots politician uses "country" in a meaning other than "sovereign state" does not make it a term that the majority of our readers will be using to look for the list of sovereign states. The atlases that I've cited show conclusively that "country" is uniformly used as the term for sovereign states. Scotland, et al., in the atlases I've cited, are called "provinces" or "dependencies" or "regions", not "countries". "Country" is reserved exclusively for sovereign states. So we have to consider usability as a primary factor in motivating us to have a redirect to List of sovereign states at List of countries because that is what our readers will be looking for. WP:RS isn't as relevant to this issue. It is relevant when we are dealing with article content, of course, but when we are dealing with moving readers through our encyclopedia with the least amount of fuss and bother on their part, it is much less relevant because the majority of them are not specialists or nationalists. The majority of our readers will not be looking for dependencies when they are looking for "Countries of the world", they will be looking for sovereign states, because that is the common meaning of the term for the majority of English speakers. Our average reader, in coming to "List of countries" just wants to find a list of the countries of the world, not a disambiguation page filled with subtleties that he or she may or may not comprehend. "What the heck? I just wanted a list of the countries of the world. What is all this stuff? Where do I need to go?" It is our responsibility to respond to the needs of the majority of our readers and take them where they need to go when they ask the simple question, "What are the countries of the world?" --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide evidence for your assertions, or they are merely your opinion. It is quite ridiculous to assert that WP:RS isn't as relevant to this issue. WP:RS is a core constituent of Wikipedia's five pillars (WP:NPOV). Daicaregos (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are lost, Daiceregos. The very first sentence of WP:RS is "Wikipedia articles should be based on...". Articles, not redirects, not disambiguation pages, not user interface or usability issues, but articles. Your issue here is not an article, it is not about content, it is not about sources. It is about navigation only. Navigation does not fall under the purview of WP:RS. --Taivo (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Did you not manage to find any evidence to substantiate your opinion? Can't say I'm surprised tbh. 2.) Obviously, you missed my argument - that my first choice for the article List of countries is that it should be a list of countries, per WP:TITLE. The policy Deciding on an article title begins "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." It is not our place to decide what is the most common meaning of a word. If reliable sources describe somewhere as a country, that place should be included on a list of countries. As a poor second choice List of countries should be a disambiguation page (if editors refuse to allow the article to be based on a fundimental Wikipedia policy and choose instead to use their own POV). What it should not be is a redirect to List of sovereign states. They are not synonymous. 3.) You will note that WP:RS is an integral part of WP:TITLE. Your "Navigation does not fall under the purview of WP:RS" argument is, therefore, irrelevant. 4.) Now look, mate. You invoke incivility (concerning use of your username), where others saw none, then contrive to misspell my name twice. Once, is careless. Twice, well, most idiots are capable of cut 'n paste. Pack it in. Daicaregos (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, Daicaregos, your point of view on this issue is failing as most editors are not being swayed by your rhetoric. I stand by the comments I have made. Your POV that the list of sovereign states should actually be labelled "List of countries" fails on the very issue that you are arguing strongly for--disambiguation. "List of countries" fails as an article title because, despite the fact that the majority of English speakers consider "list of countries" and "list of sovereign states" to be identical, there is a large enough group of editors who strongly oppose that position that a compromise was warranted. The compromise is the current status quo. Since you were not involved in any of the "country/state" discussions, you would not recognize some of the editors both here and at Talk:List of sovereign states who have taken part in those discussions. And your opinion that WP:RS is the primary driver for navigation issues is still wrong. I don't know your history at Wikipedia, but if you've been involved in many of these naming issues, you should know that usability trumps WP:RS almost all the time where there is a question or a conflict between them. Article content is the domain of WP:RS, not navigation or user friendliness. --Taivo (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A source defining countries would be great. Our Country article is remarkably undersourced. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few to be getting on with: Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs. More recently, Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, called Scotland a country. Daicaregos (talk) 09:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't define countries, they just have sources calling suchandsuch a country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they don't. What led you to believe they would? They are reliable sources that define, call or refer to countries that are not on 'List of sovereign states', are they not? Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said "I can provide you with dozens of reliable sources defining, calling or referring to countries", so I was hoping for sources that define countries. Naming something a country does not define countries. I feel uncomfortable using words on the encyclopaedia that I can not define, let alone basing a list on them. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood. What I said was: ”I can provide you with dozens of reliable sources defining, calling or referring to countries that are not on 'List of sovereign states'.”, And I did. Quoting only part of that sentence changed its context. Daicaregos (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you then clarify what you meant when you included the word defining in that sentence? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose proposed change, and keep as is. If someone types "List of countries" then nine times out of ten, they will be looking for the information presented at List of sovereign states. For the one out of ten looking for something else, there are enough hatnotes and explanatory texts at List of sovereign states to get them where they want to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed change. See my opening comment at Talk:List of sovereign states#List of countries. List of sovereign states is the primary topic for List of countries, There is a hatnote at List of sovereign states to Lists of countries and territories which is basically a very large dab page for list of countries, and in my opinion we do not need another dab page at List of countries, when there is a clear primary meaning which the page already redirects. -- PBS (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I would echo PBS and Amakuru here. List of sovereign states is clearly the primary topic here, but if people want something else the hatnote there will take them where they want to go. Disambiguating adds nothing but an extra step for the majority of readers who want list of sovereign states. The argument advanced above that this redirect has to be turned into an indiscriminate list of entities that someone at some point has described as a "country" (in any sense of the word) in any source deemed reliable has been discussed and found wanting before, and has not improved in the meantime. Such an article is patently unworkable, given the varying and contradictory definitions of the word "country". The status quo reflects what is by far the most likely page desired by a reader who types "list of countries" into the search box. Pfainuk talk 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Lists of countries and territories is already essentially nothing more than a disambiguation page so I really don't see any point in creating a third article. Since List of sovereign states is the primary topic of List of countries it should be redirected to and appropriate hatnotes used. I really can't see someone typing List of countries into the searchbox expecting to end up at List of FIFA country codes or List of Internet top-level domains. TDL (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask a question? Is the proposed move being made from List of Countries to List of Sovereign states in order to circumnavigate the fact that "countries" such as England, Wales and Scotland are commonly as well as verifiably called countries? I read somewhere above a user stating that most people when looking for a list of counrties would in fact be looking for sovereign countries. I beg to differ, but then that is only my opinion. If there are verifiable sources that say most people are looking for sovereign states, rather than what it says on the tin, countries, I would be interested in hearing the proof. The bottom line is, unless there is absolute proof that when people look up List of Countries and are confused to see non-sovereign countries included then I don't see a problem with the current title. Carson101 (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carson101, this is not a request for move. There is currently a list List of sovereign states. List of countries is a redirect there. This proposal is to turn List of countries into a disambiguation page. Only among some speakers of English in the United Kingdom does "country" mean anything other than "sovereign state". Throughout the U.S. and other English-speaking countries, "country" primarily means "sovereign state" and the term "list of countries" means a "list of sovereign states". The proof is that throughout English atlases, that is the only usage for "country". Since this is not an issue of article content, but an issue only of navigation, then WP:RS does not apply. --Taivo (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite proper to discuss WP:RS here. If fact, WP:RFD says "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia." Daicaregos (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But that is not what you are trying to do here, Daicaregos. You are not trying to turn this into a "fleshed-out encyclopedia article". You are simply trying to turn a redirect into another disambiguation page that competes with other, identical, disambiguation pages and confuses the great majority of readers who simply want List of sovereign states as the answer to their question, "What are the countries of the world?" --Taivo (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you have provided no evidence for any of your claims. And secondly, as I said, List of countries should be a list of countries, per WP:TITLE. The policy Deciding on an article title begins "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." It is not our place to decide what is the most common meaning of a word. If reliable sources describe somewhere as a country, that place should be included on a list of countries. If editors refuse to allow the article to be based on a fundimental Wikipedia policy and choose instead to use their own POV, then List of countries should be a disambiguation page (as a poor second choice). What it should not be is a redirect to List of sovereign states. They are not synonymous. Daicaregos (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daicaregos, I have provided evidence that the two major producers of English language atlases (Hammond and Rand McNally) uniformly use "country" to refer to sovereign states, not to dependent territories or provinces. That is quite sufficient as evidence that the most common meaning of "list of countries" is "list of sovereign states". And the disambiguation page you offer is a poor duplicate of Lists of countries and territories. You simply have not proven that a "list of countries" would be anything useful to our readers other than a list of sovereign states with Scotland and Wales. When the majority of our readers are looking for List of sovereign states when they are trying to answer the simple question, "What are the countries of the world?", you have given no valid reason to inconvenience them with a list that they do not want (that includes non-sovereign provinces and dependencies) and will give them the wrong answer or a disambiguation page that might direct them to a list they do not want because you have confused them with an alternate, and decidedly minority, meaning of "country". All you have done is push your interpretation of Wikipedia policy without addressing the far more important issue of usability for our readers. --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Taivo, I should have made it clear. The evidence you have not provided is for your claim that the great majority of readers want List of sovereign states when they enter List of countries. Re "You simply have not proven that a "list of countries" would be anything useful to our readers other than a list of sovereign states with Scotland and Wales." If those were the only countries not to be on List of sovereign states it would be useful to add them because it would be a List of countries, and would be as useful and informative as any other complete Wikipedia list.Daicaregos (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daicaregos, adding Scotland and Wales to a list of sovereign states just because they are accidentally called "countries" instead of provinces or states or departments or principalities or whatever else is unacceptable since they are nothing more than any other semi-autonomous dependency in the world such as Russian Republics. A list of sovereign states plus Scotland and Wales is unacceptable on its face simply because it elevates these two dependent regions to a status that they do not deserve. As I stated below, making a list of countries that consists of sovereign states plus Scotland and Wales makes no more sense than making a list of states that consists of sovereign states plus Texas, Queensland, Minas Gerais, and Chihuahua or a list of republics that includes sovereign republics plus Crimea, Bashkortostan, and Yakutia. The historical accident of a dependent unit being called X, where X is more commonly used for sovereign units, is not grounds enough to include it in a list of the sovereign units. --Taivo (talk) 07:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I'm afraid that all that comment does is demonstrate your lack of understanding of the constitutional position of England, Scotland, Wales and the UK. You are, quite simply, wrong on those points. We need to be clear about these things, not add to people's confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, I am quite familiar with the sacred "constitutional position" of England, Scotland and Wales. But I'm not impressed that there is anything at all special about it. Every country in the world (sovereign state, not accidental "countries") has a different relationship between itself and its dependent parts. I have read the Brits on here pushing the "special relationship" for years now and the arguments for treating Scotland and Wales as something more than semi-autonomous regions of the UK just don't hold up. The argument that they should be treated special because they compete in soccer under their own flags isn't really a very strong argument at all. Do they have their own armies and navies? Do they issue their own currency? Do they enter into international treaties? Are they separate members of the European Union or NATO? I'm well aware of the nationalistic pride that issues from the Scots and the Welsh concerning the fact that they are called "countries", we deal with a similar pride from Texans because Texas was a former independent country that entered the Union through treaty and not by the normal route. But that pride doesn't make Scotland and Wales more than they are--dependent units of the sovereign United Kingdom. But this isn't, in the end, about what Scotland and Wales are. It's about navigation and the fact that the term "countries of the world" does not normally include Scotland and Wales for most speakers of English. --Taivo (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the imprecise meanings of country, nation and state, cause British people no end of problems with foreigners particularly those who the first meet entering the USA. Many countries entry forms phrase the question "what is the nationality of your passport" rather than "what is your nationality" or the US question "5. Passport issued by (country)". I think the US authorities use "(country)" in question 5 of the U.S. Customs Deceleration because to an American the word "state" had similar confusions that of "country" for Brits". BTW it is not uncommon for Brits to be told by cabin staff on flights into the USA to write "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" when filling in the answer to question "7. Country of Residence". (The Welsh may then go an blow it on the next question (8. "Counties visited on this trip prior to U.S. arrival") as Heathrow is in England) :-) It seems to me that recently the security personnel at LAX have just about given up being so pedantic over the meaning of the word country, as they don't now seem to mind if Brits use their own definitions for country and write in one of the constituent countries of the UK. I bet they don't give people from other nations (apart from Quebec?) the same latitude! However as Taivo points out, this issue is about Wikipedia navigation and the primary meaning for country is state: Few Brits would write "England" for question 5 on the U.S. Customs Deceleration form "Passport issued by (country)" or "Wales" for the country that issues their driving licence. Like buying beer in pints and wine in millilitres, most Brits are flexible enough to know that "country" has more than one meaning depending on the context in which it is used and that its most common meaning in this context (List of countries) is as a synonym for state. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I found this RfD because I was looking for List of sovereign states, because I wanted to see the current status of South Sudan, but couldn't remember the exact name of the article, so I typed in "List of countries" instead. This page is most useful as a redirect to List of sovereign states - no-one would type in "List of countries" expecting to find those things on the disambiguation page. Jayjg (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - re. "no-one" - just because you assume that the words "country" and "sovereign state" are exact synonyms does not mean that every other person on the planet concurs with you. In fact one very significant group of people does not share your opinion: people who write and edit respected English language dictionaries. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mais ous!, if a young person walked up to you on the street and asked you, "What are the countries of the world?", what would you honestly answer? If your answer is "Scotland, England, Wales, France, Germany...", then you may have satisfied your own inner POV about the status of these provinces, but have you actually answered the question? Would you actually expect that young person to go back to school and use that on a geography test? If so, then you are cruel because you know that it will be the wrong answer and that poor young person will fail the question. When dealing with navigation issues here in Wikipedia, it is crucial to understand how many school kids come here for answers to their questions and turning List of countries of the world into a confusing page for dilettantes in service of an obscure and uncommon POV is doing them a disservice that is the antithesis of the Wikipedia mission. There are other places to push the "Scotland is a country" POV in the text of articles, but not in the primary navigation system. You claim that dictionary writers don't use "country" in the sense of "sovereign state", but you are wrong. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language has as the first definition of "country", "nation or state", and the first definition of "nation" is "A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government, a country" while the second definition of "nation" is "government of a sovereign state". So there you have fairly solid dictionary evidence that the primary meaning of "country" in English (outside the U.K. at least) is "sovereign state". --Taivo (talk) 04:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean inside the U.S. at least. Nightw 06:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you implying that a British school child, when asked "What are the countries of the world?" would include Scotland and Wales as separate entities? I serious doubt that. --Taivo (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, no, I was calling you on your use of an American English dictionary as "dictionary evidence" of the English language everywhere outside the UK. As though there is only the U.S. and the UK. Most commonwealth countries have their own lexicons, or follow the British standards. Nightw 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I seriously doubt you fully understand the position in the UK. Many children (and indeed adults) in many parts of the UK would indeed state, unprompted, that of course Scotland, England and Wales are separate countries. That is, simply, a fact. It is not a "POV" to state that - it is the position as it is. The countries have national sporting teams and play each other in international competitions, as one obvious example - they also, increasingly evidently, have quite distinct governments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To add my two penn'orth. Sovereign states and countries ARE different things, politically. I would also say that many readers for whom English is not their first language would type "country" instead of "sovereign state". I don't think that is important for the purposes of navigation. Yes, if I wanted to find lists of countries (sovereign states, political entities etc) then I would probably type "lists" instead of "list", but it seems to me you are all perfect typists and could not possibly make a slip to type an extra S by mistake, or being a foreign reader, think that "list" had to agree in number with "country" and so mistakenly pluralise it. I am not saying it is right to do so, I am saying, the purpose of a redirect is to try to get people to where they want to be: assume maximum intelligence and minimum knowledge. So "List of countries" seems quite a reasonable redirect to me, and the faffing about whether they are sovereign states etc leave to the pedants, direct it SOMEWHERE useful. Is the United Arab Emirates a sovereign state? It is a collection of states, none of which have a sovereign, though all have emirs. For the pedantic point, the United States is not a sovereign state, since it doesn't have a sovereign and is made up of fifty states. These technical points of definition are not the point of RfD, which is to say, IS THIS LINK USEFUL OR HARMFUL TO THE INTELLIGENT USER WHO WANTS TO FIND INFORMATION? I don't know the answer to that, but we are not here to define "country" or "sovereign state", only to decide whether we think the redirect should be changed, kept, deleted, or whatever, to aid a search.
By the way I did not see any incivility in any of the comments above, only vigorous intelligent argument.
"The past is another country. They do things differently there". Opening lines of The Go-Between. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Cross posting from Talk:List of sovereign states) There is a POV issue amongst a small number of editors who stridently push a narrow and unyielding view that such-and-such a place (usually located on an archipelago off the north-west coast of France) is a "country" and must not be called anything less ... otherwise THE WORLD WILL END!!! (Struck: 08:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC))
However, in this case, I find myself in sympathy with them. Country is ambigious - a reason why it is best avoided on articles to do with such-and-such a place in favour of more clearer terms (contrary to their POV pushing). What makes a "country" is not well defined, and while the common use in English is for country to mean sovereign state, there are other places which are called "country".
For that reason, I would suggest to two-pronged approach. A move to one article and a change to the redirect on List of countries:
  1. Move Lists of countries and territories → Lists of sovereign states and territories
  2. Change the redirect on List of countries to point to Lists of sovereign states and territories
That way, List of countries would rightly point to an ambigious "list of lists", which includes a link to List of sovereign states. --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghmyrtle, 08:30, 13 July 2011 - And their's is one point of view (from which you should not imply that it is not my - personal - point of view). That does not mean that Wikipedia has to be written from that point of view - or even substantially incorporate it. Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, not the point of view of British adults and school children alone or even predominately. --RA (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@RA: I agree with you (I think - it's painful to get my head round the various options). I was responding to Taivo, who asked a (presumably) rhetorical question, to which the factual answer is the opposite of that which he assumes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The factual answer is definately 'yes'.
This topic (the wider context) reminds me of the trouble around British Isles. For some, it was quite plainly obvious that there should be issues around use of that term. For others, that point of view was so unexpected that to them it could only be made up. Some of the comments above remind me of the reaction provoked an unexpected point of view during those discussions: that the minority POV had to be resisted entirely. For a large part, the hammer and thongs approach to the issue made by those advocating the minority POV was to blame for that.
In reality, to satisify NPOV we need to integrate minority POVs (while avoiding fringe view) but we cannot allow them to direct the course of the encyclopedia. For that to happen, there needs to be a little more give on both sides of this issue - and a more acceptance of the reality of the dominant POV by those advocating the minority POV - before we will achieve NPOV. --RA (talk) 10:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ghmyrtle, you didn't answer my question. You asked that rhetorical British school child a different question. You asked, "Are Scotland, Wales, etc. countries?" to which they replied "Yes" because that'sw what they've been taught. But that's not the question I asked them. I asked them, "What are the countries of the world?" That's the question where I seriously believe that they would not include Scotland and Wales in with France, Germany, Vietnam, South Africa, etc. They would include "Britain" or "the United Kingdom" as an equal member of the set "countries of the world", but not Scotland or Wales. That's the key question here--not the meaning of "country" in every sentence in which it occurs, such as "I have a house in the country", but the meaning of "country" in the simple question, "What are the countries of the world". That's the focus we need to keep our minds on, the place that most of our readers want to go when they ask, "What are the countries of the world?" It is List of sovereign states without any further difficulty in reaching that destination. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RA, I oppose your proposal for the simple reason that "List of sovereign states" is a compromise worked out by both British and non-British editors to avoid the contentious term "country" in the title of this article. Outside the UK, Scotland etc. are not "countries", they are provinces/dependent areas/whatever, but "country" is usually reserved for sovereign states. Therefore, using "sovereign state" as the title of this list is the compromise to avoid the UK problem. And it fails in the aspect of usability. When our readers want the answer to the question, "What are the countries of the world?" they want List of sovereign states. That is the most common meaning of the phrase "Countries of the world". If they want something more than sovereign states, that is what the hatnote is for. But the majority of readers get exactly where they want to be by the redirect at List of countries. --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, not all countries are sovereign states. For example, Greenland and Puerto Rico can both reasonably be called countries but are not sovereign states. In Europe, countries like France, the Netherlands and Denmark are only part of the sovereign states of the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Denmark. Coming as I do from Ireland, a distinction is often made between the sovereign state of Ireland and the country of Ireland, the latter of which includes what is politically Northern Ireland and so part of another sovereign state.
Those pushing the “such-and-such is a country” point of view at all cost do over-state the matter - but the answer is not to deny the matter or to display ignorance of it. Additionally, the article under discussion is List of countries, not List of countries of the world (presumably in contrast to countries located elsewhere in the universe?). --RA (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, irony. I see List of countries of the world (which I expected to be a red link) redirects to Lists of countries and territories. --RA (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you continue to confuse the question here. The question is, what do the majority of users want when they ask the question, "What are the countries of the world" (which should also redirect to List of sovereign states). No matter what the sovereign states call their dependent parts, the question of what is the normal meaning of the phrase, "countries of the world"? The normal meaning is not sovereign states and territories, but sovereign states only. It is a list of the "top-level nodes" so to speak. That is the common meaning of "countries of the world". --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the fundamental contradiction in the argument of the "Scotland as country" POV (for lack of a better name). The argument begins, "'country' has different meanings". Yes, it does, as in "I have a country house", "I like country music", etc., but specifically in using the peculiarly British expression, "the countries of the UK". So you argue for a broad interpretation of "country" depending on the phrase in which it occurs. No problem. But when discussing the specific phrase "countries of the world", you suddenly become rigid and insist that the only interpretation is the British interpretation even though that is not the most common interpretation of "country" in that phrase. Imagine an American trying to insist that this list cannot be called "states" because then we'd have to list Texas and California. It's the same principle. When combined with "of the world", both the word "countries" and the word "states" takes on a particular meaning in that context of "sovereign states". --Taivo (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting argument. Let's for a minute suppose that the context that makes the statement "Scotland is a country" true, is different to the statement "Scotland is a country of the world". This is not List of countries of the world. It is List of countries, on which Scotland, as a country, belongs. Also, re your examples of "country house" and "country music”: while it is true to say "Scotland is a country", it is not true to say "country house is a country", "country music is a country” or even "country is a country" or "music is a country”. This is where the policy reliable sources come in. It begins: "Wikipedia articles should be based on all reliable, published sources; and, majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view)." There is no reason hat notes directing readers to List of sovereign states and List of nations (which should also be 'fleshed out') could not work perfectly well. Daicaregos (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that when you say "all reliable, published sources", you include the German constitution, which defines Germany as a federation of "countries"? And of course the French sources that refer to their "countries", and the "countries" that form part of them. Doubtless you will also include the Basque Country, the Black Country and the Westcountry. I'm sure we can source that the Past is a country, and if we're including all reliable, published sources, it should be trivial to find references for the Soviet Union, or for East Germany. By focusing on England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I believe you display your bias. A list of countries created on the basis you propose must include all of those examples, and I would imagine many more.
The redirect should stay because there is no benefit to the encyclopædia in creating either a disambiguation page or a kitchen-sink list with no coherent basis. There is, on the other hand, benefit in redirecting readers to an article that they are likely to actually want, including a hatnote in case they're looking for something else. Pfainuk talk 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"When combined with 'of the world', both the word 'countries' and the word 'states' takes on a particular meaning in that context of 'sovereign states'." - Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of your argument, in this case, the word "countries" is not combined with "of the world". The article we are talking about is List of countries.
Is it just me or is a wider RfC (leading possible to a MOS entry) this issue merited? --RA (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I can see this one will run and run. I repeat, we are not here to define what a country or sovereign state is — leave that to the pedants on those target sites. We are here to decide where to redirect it to, if at all, not to define it. In the meantime, another editor and I have fixed up an RfD by being sensible and WP:AGF with each other, and despite the fact I think in that particular case I was wrong, our sensible argument and discussion made WP better. Now, what would you do? Si Trew (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, you seem to be very self-confident in making statements about what is or is not the case in terms of definitions of a country and the likely response of British School children. As far as I can see this is solely based on your interpretation of two American Atlases; I suggest you might want to be more circumspect in your statements. It is a fact that countries sometimes means sovereign states in some discourse. However it is equally true (and verifiable, ie not based on Taivo's opinion or belief) that country and sovereign state are not synonyms. It seems very simple; if we have a list of countries then it has to include non-soverign states. If on the other hand a search on list of countries takes you to a list of sovereign states, and there is a hat note to explain the simple facts that seems to me a perfectly reasonable position. It also avoids all the nonsense we have seen about the use of brackets, indents, footnotes etc. --Snowded TALK 16:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While Snowded and I may have differing views on what a British young person does or does not mean when they ask, "What are the countries of the world", we are in perfect agreement that List of countries (and List of countries of the world) should redirect here to List of sovereign states with a hatnote that directs the few readers who want something else to Lists of countries and territories. The question here has always been one of a redirect, not one of the final definition of "country". We do our readers the greatest service to move them quickly to the information that they are most likely to want. --Taivo (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Peter, it does include territories--in the comments section of each of the sovereign states. But the primary issue is, and always has been, not what is the definition of "country", but how do we quickly move the most readers to the place they want to be with the least amount of headache and the fewest clicks. Most readers of Wikipedia have no idea of the nationalistic subtleties surrounding the word "country" and simply want a list of the sovereign nations of the world when they use the word "country" in the question "What are the countries of the world?" So when they type "list of countries" they don't want to see the mind-blowing complexity of Lists of countries and territories, they just want a list of sovereign entities to finish their homework. --Taivo (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've mentioned this several times now. Please provide the evidence for your claim that readers entering "list of countries" actually wanted something else, or stop making it. Daicaregos (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's consider how many pages link to the two articles. List of sovereign states has 113,320 backlinks versus 1,284 for Lists of countries and territories. 100 times as many backlinks for List of sovereign states in the wiki certainly supports the position that it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. TDL (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Actually it doesn't, because you're comparing apples and oranges. What you need to compare are the article space backlinks and page view stats of each each of the individual lists linked to from the directory page "Lists of countries and territories" (which could equally validly be called "List of lists of countries" which highlights the difference very clearly). The list of lists will allways have fewer backlinks as most articles will link directly to the relevant list. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daicaregos, I never claimed that readers entering List of countries didn't want that. What I have repeatedly said, and you have failed to provide any evidence otherwise, is that the majority of users who want a list of "countries" want a list of "sovereign states" and are using the word "countries" as a more common term for that notion. Getting a list of sovereign states when one types in "list of countries" is not an error--it is the most common meaning of "country" and will be found as the first or second definition of "country" in dictionaries and atlases. I've already demonstrated that. Danlaycock's point is also very valid--that ten times as many wikilinks lead to List of sovereign states as lead to Lists of countries and territories demonstrating that List of sovereign states is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Taivo (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't see you provide anything other than your own opinion to justify the statement that people for searching for countries automatically mean sovereign states. Wikilinks shows more interest in one over the other but that is not the same thing. --Snowded TALK 05:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read back through the comments, you will see that most of the editors commenting here take that as a given based on lexical usage of "country" in atlases and dictionaries. I've not seen any evidence that when a person from the UK asks, "What are the countries of the world", they don't mean sovereign states as well. Do Brits actually list Scotland and Wales in lists of "countries of the world"? When they are asked the question, "What are the countries of the UK", of course, they do, but do they actually include Scotland and Wales when the scope of "country" is not the UK, but the world? In the US, the lexical evidence is quite clear that "countries of the world" only includes sovereign states. --Taivo (talk) 07:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the objectivity of 4a few wikipedia editors including one who makes absolute statements based on a partial reading of two US Atlases. FYI many Americans I know refer to the UK as England, including major news channels. Is your goal that ignorance of facts should be perpetuated? If so lets change the name of UK article now, and change the entry in this list to England. The simple fact, and you have not shown any evidence against this, is that the definition of country does not include a requirement that it be a sovereign state, although most are. Last time I looked this was an encyclopedia, somewhere where people come to learn and be educated not to perpetuate common, if petty ignorances. --Snowded TALK 10:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Partial reading"? Snowded, I remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. There's no "partial" about it unless you can prove that I have missed something in them. I don't quote sources unless I hold them in my hand or have full text. I continue to remind you that this is not a discussion about the complete range of meanings of "country", but a simple discussion of a navigation issue. Are the majority of our readers served by directing them quickly and easily to the information that they actually want or forcing them to wander through a complex disambiguation page or using an article that does not actually answer their question. That's all this is about. In the United States at least, "country", when used in the context of "world", means only sovereign states. That's how it's used in the most common American atlases, that's how it's used in the primary definitions in American dictionaries. I've shown this. So when an American, at least, searches for "list of countries" or "countries of the world", they are looking for sovereign states. You still have not addressed the question I have asked many times already, "What does a British school child mean, when they ask the question, 'What are the countries of the world?'" Are British schoolchildren actually taught that Scotland and Wales are separate and equal in a list of "countries of the world"? If not, then the navigation issue here applies to British users as well. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read them yourself Taivo. You seem to be on a personal crusade on this one which is never healthy. To answer your question, I was taught that Wales was a country in school several decades ago, and if anything its more prevalent these days. I notice you skipped sideways and around the popular use if England for the UK in the US point. We don't perpetuate inaccuracies in wikipedia to pander to ignorance --Snowded TALK 13:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, you still accuse me of not having read the books I am holding in my hand. I assure you, sir, that I have and if you think I have missed something in my reading, then please correct me by reading them yourself. Unless you have read these yourself, Snowded, and can point out any errors in my reading of them, then I suggest you leave your groundless accusations to yourself. --Taivo (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested you read the two policies you reminded me of yourself Taivo, In future I suggest you read, think, read and again and then avoid reacting. --Snowded TALK 07:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a bit of back and forth going on at List of countries of the world that is probably related to this. Rennell435 (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think Taivo summed it up quite nicely saying "...not what is the definition of "country", but how do we quickly move the most readers to the place they want to be with the least amount of headache and the fewest clicks". (I hope I have not changed the meaning there by quoting it out of context, I think that is EXACTLY the point). Whether a sovereign state needs a sovereign, for example (do we include republics?) or what a state is or so on, is beyond the scope of this RfD. The point is when someone types in "countries of the world" or similar where do we expect to fetch them up? I don't know the answer to that, but it is a different question to saying "how do we categorize all the various ostensibly self-governing entities in the world into lists that fit a nice pedantic pattern"? Is England a country? Is it a sovereign state? It has a sovereign, but perhaps it is just part of the UK. What about Wales. That has never been independent, and is a principality. I don't think those kind of subtleties need to be considered for the purpose of someone searching for a list of countries. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is why this encyclopaedia needs to be accurate: so that differences in terminology are explained correctly and unambiguously. You may call it pedantic, but without the pedants, this project would fail. Sovereign state relates to the state's territorial sovereignty, rather than being dependent upon whether the head of state is a king or queen. England is a country, but not a sovereign state. Wales has been independent, although it isn't now, but it is a country, not a principality. Lastly, a sovereign state is (almost) always a country, but a country is not necessarily a sovereign state, which is why List of countries and List of sovereign states should be separate articles, rather one redirecting to the other. Daicaregos (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daicaregos, you continue to confuse article content with the simple navigation issue here. "List of countries" is not an encyclopedic entry because it assumes that someone is looking for a list of sovereign states that includes Scotland and Wales as separate entries. It is nothing more than "List of sovereign states plus two dependent territories of the United Kingdom". In other words, it gives Scotland and Wales undue importance. When the majority of our readers are using "country" to mean "sovereign state" in the context of "world", it is critical that we neither confuse our readers, nor direct them to a wrong answer to their question. If a student is coming to Wikipedia to find "countries of the world" and lands on a "List of countries" that includes Scotland and Wales, then we have given that reader incorrect information based on what the reader is looking for. If you insist on some list of sovereign states that includes Scotland and Wales, then find another name for it, but do not confuse the majority of our readers who are looking for sovereign states and not for something that unduly elevates Scotland and Wales as if they were. And your assertion that somehow using "country" as "sovereign state" is "incorrect" is a strictly British POV. In the US, such usage is not incorrect, but is the norm. Do not try to force British usage on Wikipedia. We have to walk a middle ground between British and American usage and not force one on the other. In this case, the better middle ground is to maintain a redirect at List of countries to follow American usage, but if you think it is necessary to have a separate list that includes sovereign states plus Scotland and Wales, then give it another name that does not misdirect Americans. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I have asked you to provide evidence for your various claims, or stop making them. Other than your atlas examples, you have done neither. Yet another unsubstanciated claim has now been made. Well, to save anyone the bother of checking for themselves, here is how Americans define 'country' (Merriam-Webster describe themselves thus: “For more than 150 years, in print and now online, Merriam-Webster has been America's leading and most-trusted provider of language information.” ):
Definition of COUNTRY
1: an indefinite usually extended expanse of land: region (miles of open country)
2a: the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship
b: a political state or nation or its territory
3a: the people of a state or district: populace
b: jury
c: electorate
4 : rural as distinguished from urban area (prefers the country to the city)
5 : country music
I think we can agree that definition #2 is relevant for our purposes. As we can see, no reference is made to sovereignty or independence. That is because country and sovereign state are not the same thing. Should there be any Americans, or others, who are ignorant of that, this encyclopaedia is a good place for them to be educated. Country and sovereign state should each have separate lists. Daicaregos (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is but one dictionary, Daicaregos, and I have provided references to two other American dictionaries and two American atlas publishers (and if you believe Merriam-Webster's marketing, then I have some swampland in Florida to sell you). You have provided but a single reference that still mentions "sovereign state" (the first or second definition of "nation" is usually "state" or "country"). You still are simply pushing a POV where you want a list of sovereign states plus Scotland and Wales, which is completely misleading for users looking for the normal meaning of "countries of the world" which is sovereign states only. And you continue to dodge my question, When British school children are taught the "countries of the world" or ask for the "countries of the world", do they normally include Scotland and Wales or not? --Taivo (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I see that you are making some statements that are not backed up by hard facts. Let me do the same. When I am abroad, and I've been to many parts of the world over the years, and I'm asked what country I come from I always always say Scotland. I have never been told to try again because they don't believe that Scotland is a country. Anyone saying that it is POV to say that they are countries suitable for a list of countries article should look at their own POV. I thought this website was based on verifiable facts and if people don't accept that then I would ask them to change the the rules of wikipedia. Carson101 (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "hard facts" Carson101 are that the largest publishers of American atlases and American dictionaries use "country" primarily to mean "sovereign state". Again, your comment about people asking where you are from is not the same question as the schoolchild's question, "What are the countries of the world?" When I am in Eastern Europe I often answer "Utah" when people ask me where I am from. Just as people know that Scotland is in the UK, they know that Utah is in the US, but it's still a question of context. "What are the countries of the world?" is still a fundamentally different question than "Where are you from?" (or "What country are you from?" or "What state are you from?"). The "Where are you from?" question is not a "list" question so it can be answered right down to "Los Angeles" or "London" or "the West End of London". Even if a person asks, "What country are you from?" and you answered "Edinburgh", you would still be answering their question and they would be satisfied (as long as they knew where Edinburgh was). But the schoolchild's question is very specific and cannot be answered with a mix of upper-level and lower-level entities. The implication in a list-type question is that all the entries in the list are equal. That's the problem here, that none of the Brits have yet answered (possibly because they can't), what is the correct answer to a British schoolchild's question, "What are the countries of the world?". The problem is that a "list" question requires members of equal status, not a mix of dependent and independent units. If I asked you, "What are the cities of New York?", a correct answer might be, "New York, Albany, Buffalo...", but an incorrect answer would be, "New York, Manhattan, Queens, Albany..." because Manhattan and Queens are subunits of New York and not equal in status to Albany and Buffalo. That's the problem here. Those advocating that List of countries should point anywhere other than to List of sovereign states fail to understand the fundamental nature of a question requesting lists and want to create a list that contains unequal members and direct people to that rather than to the correct answer to the reader's question. --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they don't correct you because they know where you mean and are being polite? When I've been in groups of British and non-British people and the British people have insisted on England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland instead of Britain or the UK, I've found that most non-British people tend to just privately (or not-so-privately) roll their eyes and let you get on with it. They're not necessarily agreeing with you that Scotland is a country - just recognising that the British have their foibles.
We should be basing the site on verifiable fact, right, but we also need to have some kind of integrity in our lists. A list needs to be based on a single definition. If it doesn't have one, but rather lists any entitiy that meets any of the several definitions of a word that means different things to different people, there is no point in having the list. Chipmunkdavis' point below is a good one: on the basis that is argued here both Mahatma Gandhi and Pocahontas do belong on a list of Indians.
In other words, a list has to have inclusion criteria: a means of defining what belongs in and what doesn't. And there's no reason whatsoever why those inclusion criteria have to be placed in the page title. If there were, many of our list titles would be so long as to be totally unmanageable (indeed, we would in many cases be required to make pages that you couldn't link to because Mediawiki only allows wikilinks of a certain length). That's what the lede is for.
I note that I do see a very clear POV in having a list that implies that England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland are or should be considered to be of equivalent status to sovereign states, which is what some are calling for here. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are parts of the United Kingdom. So that's how Wikipedia should treat them.
The most sensible approach is what we do in this case. Redirect to the definition that most people are likely to be looking for. Put a hatnote at the top for those that want something else. That way everyone can find what they want without any problem. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My growing concern with List_of_sovereign_states is that it is substantially a copy of Member states of the United Nations with some extra territories added, such as Northern Cyprus. The criteria for deciding the extra territories is dubious as it doesn't appear to be based on any official list, but on personal interpretation of complex laws and definitions - which is against WP:OR. I am wondering if this redirect discussion is the right one, and if the discussion should be if List_of_sovereign_states is an appropriate list or if it should be deleted. Wikipedians should not be arguing/debating/deciding what constitutes a country or a sovereign state - we should be reporting what reliable sources have determined, and indicate the alternative lists rather than try to present one list as "primary". SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for that discussion. --Taivo (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Pfainuk talk 17:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, unknown user, is twofold: 1) the use of the word "country" to describe Scotland and Wales is simply a terminological one, "country" is the same as "state" or "province" or "department", as simply being the term used in the UK to describe its subordinate units. There is no real fundamental definition that says, "this subunit can be called a 'country' while this subunit can be called an 'autonomous region', etc. 2) The implication of a list is that all its members are equal in status, but Scotland and Wales are not equal in status to France and Canada, they are simply subunits of the United Kingdom, which is equal in status. --Taivo (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references that I don't have, but have found on Google Books. I would be curious as to whether these books, some published in the UK, list Scotland and Wales as "countries of the world", or they use "country" as a synonym for "sovereign state".
  • Peter Stalker, 2010, Oxford Guide to Countries of the World (Oxford)
  • Daniel Smith, 2006, Barron's Pocket Factbook: Countries of the World (Barron's)
  • Anonymous, 2003, Primary Sources of Countries of the World: An Invaluable Resource for Country Research and Reports (Rosen Publishing Group)
  • Peter Stalker, 2004, A-Z of Countries of the World (Oxford)
In a Google Book search for the exact phrase "countries of the world" in books published since 1 Jan 2000, there were 14,500 results. Obviously, I have not examined each of these books, but reading through the snippets offered, it is clear that "country" in the phrase "countries of the world" has a clear meaning of "sovereign state". There has been no clear reason defined here to create a list of "sovereign states + Scotland and Wales" except the terminological accident that Scotland and Wales are called "countries" instead of "states" or "provinces" or "autonomous regions" or "departments", etc. It makes no more sense to have a "list of countries" (sovereign states + Scotland and Wales) than it does to have a "list of states" (sovereign states + Texas, Utah, Queensland, etc.) or a "list of departments" (clothing, shoes, Provence, Brittany, etc.) or even a "list of provinces" where every province in the world is listed alphabetically regardless of which country they are subordinate to. In essence, that is what the author of this proposal is suggesting--that a list be created that indiscriminately lists everything in the world that is called a "country" in some context or other without regard for meaning or equality. Indeed, this so-called "list of countries" would undoubtedly include Scotland, Wales, and England, as well as the United Kingdom as if they were all somehow equal in status. It is a terminological accident that these different regions of the UK are called "countries". It is not Wikipedia's place to turn that terminological accident into something more important than it is. --Taivo (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, your bitter dissatisfaction with the use of "country" for Scotland, Wales, etc. are restricting your ability to see beyond this single example of inconsistency. For example, searching through just the first of those texts you've provided, one will also come to find Anguilla, Greenland, etc. with their own entries. In any ordinary context, "country" will be ambiguous. And it's quite easy to argue that the most common definition includes places like Greenland. In fact, this is the definition most commonly applied in reliable sources (as I demonstrated before and as you yourself have just demonstrated for me). Most notable is the use of "countries" in the ISO list, which is then followed by countless organisations and which we ourselves follow on this project in any "list of countries". So how about you forget the idea that your own personal usage is undoubtedly the most common one and agree that the list of sovereign states, with its hatnotes and in the absence of any all-inclusive "list of countries", is simply the best target because it's the only list we have that would effectively come close to the searched term? Nightw 12:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, so would your list include Aruba and Niue? Certainly the last atlas I looked at it in regarded the latter as a country - it's not a sovereign state but has greater autonomy than England within the UK. What about French Guiana? Widely inclued in lists of countries in South America, it's actually just a department of France. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nightw, the reason I listed these is because I do not hold them and don't know what they contain and was clear in that intent in my comment. Did you only examine one of them or all of them? And what about Scotland and Wales? Do they have separate entries as well? Or are they folded into Great Britain/UK? (I will assume good faith that you are holding the book in your hand.) I can understand why noncontiguous dependencies might have separate entries, because they have a "separate existence" on a map of the world, but one of the underlying issues here has always been what to do with Scotland and Wales since that has continuously been an underlying motivation in these discussions throughout Wikipedia--to treat Scotland and Wales as somehow separate and equal. You also claim that my understanding of "countries of the world" is personal, but if you read the other comments above from other editors, you will clearly see that it is not the case. The other question this raises is how would some proposed "list of countries" differ from any of the lists already present at Lists of countries and territories? If all this proposed list does is add Scotland and Wales, then it is unacceptable. But, if it adds noncontinguous dependencies to a list of sovereign states, (as at List of countries and territories by land borders), it could be interesting to consider. But it must be based on some generally agreed upon reliable source, not just, "Let's throw together anything that's called a 'country'". It may very well be an American perspective, but that is a valid perspective nonetheless since (subtracting India), Americans constitute the majority of native speakers of English. So at this point, perhaps we should conduct a brief poll to gauge opinion. I will insert clear and unambiguous votes from above. --Taivo (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I love it. If we subtract India then us Americans control the use of the English language. Given that the Indians often speak a more correct form of English than the British and the Americans this seems a little unfair or is it that you think they are somehow or other inferior or not worthy of consideration? I repeat the question you keep avoiding, given that a lot of Americans (including major news channels) consistently use England where they should reference the United Kingdom, or possibly Britain should be change the names of those articles? You might also want to read up on wikipedia policy regarding votes, use of evidence etc. etc. I'm tempted to put a welcome notice on your page to help you find the links --Snowded TALK 07:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowded, this isn't about "England" versus "Britain", this is about a navigation issue. And, Snowded, I know very well what Wikipedia policy is on votes. You will notice that I have not called this a "vote". A straw poll is a means of judging positions for the purposes of negotiation and moving toward a decision. I will point out that there is no such thing as a "correct" form of English, either British or American. I exclude the Indians simply because the majority of them are not native monolinguals, but native bilinguals, so language interference is always an issue, while that is not the case with Americans and other nationalities that speak English, such as the British.
@Nightw, to clarify my position about a possible list, I'm not certain that "countries" would be the best label for a list of geographical units. The CIA Factbook, for example, lists all the different geographical units that are separable in a clearly defined manner--either by being divided by international borders or oceans. I'm still opposed to any list that is simply sovereign states + anything that happens to be called a "country". But in looking at Lists of countries and territories, it's not entirely clear what list would correspond to something like the CIA Factbook list. Perhaps it's there, but obscured by a non-obvious name. --Taivo (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are still avoiding the question. You argue on the one hand that common use of country in one country (which you claim has authority by virtue of number of english speakers) is as a synonym sovereign state. Even if you had that properly sourced (which you don't) then the argument would also extend to the common use of England to mean Britain/United Kingdom. I suspect you are avoiding this as it points up the absurdity of an argument based on commonly held incorrect views in one country of which you happen to be a citizen. --Snowded TALK 09:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded, I have presented the evidence from American dictionaries and American atlases, but you're just ignoring it. In the atlases, "country" is unambiguously used for "sovereign state". In the dictionaries, "state" or "independent nation" is one of the primary meanings of "country". If you look above you will see proper references to the atlases I used and the dictionaries that I used (dates of publication, page numbers). You're just ignoring the evidence. And, you know full well that WP:OTHERSTUFF means that whatever solution is used in this case does not necessarily apply to England/Britain. And, this is a straw poll, not a binding vote, so please stop removing the summary of clearly stated and unambiguous positions that were expressed above by other editors. I've marked them as "previously expressed" so you can clearly distinguish them from "fresh" comments. But it's useful to have all clear positions that have been stated in one place. --Taivo (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know full well that you are avoiding dealing with an issue which would contradict or at least make difficult the position you are taking. And no one is denying that independent state is often a meaning of country, the point is that it is one meaning not the only meaning. ASs has been pointed out to you even those references you provide are ambiguous. Elsewhere on wikipedia this issue has been thrashed out with mediators on several occasion; country is not a synonym for sovereign state. Otherwise when a straw poll is called, people vote, you can't assume their vote even with the "previously expressed" as you don't know if they still hold that position once the discussion has moved on. You are being presumptuous enough about the right of your culture to dominate the use of the english language, you should not presume a vote. I am deleting them per policy, you are of course free to notifiy EVERYONE who has taken part in this discussion about the straw poll. --Snowded TALK 11:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that hardly anybody searching "list of countries" is expecting to find a list with Scotland on it, but I won't argue against the fact that it is commonly called such. "Countries" may be ambiguous to that extent, but "list of countries" is much less so. But finding dependencies or overseas countries on a list of countries is, from my experience, more common than not. And our default criteria for lists of "countries" (e.g., List of countries by population) in the absence of a published list to copy from, is what the ISO has labelled as a country. In the presence of a published list, even the CIA (and I loathe seeing that cited as an impartial source on international topics) will list dependencies as countries (see, for example, their GDP list). I am opposing the proposal because the list of sovereign states is the only list we have that even comes close to the what the search term would reasonably be expected to yield. Nightw 12:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The word has multiple meanings but list of sovereign states is the only reasonably appropriate redirect target and is a very common meaning in the word. The reason why it's the only meaning with a proper list is because it's the only meaning for which it is even vaguely credible to create a reasonably definitive list without OR or POV. The fact that it's a anything-anyone's-ever-called-a-country-regardless-of-what-they-meant inclusion criterion that is being called for demonstrates this fact.
I would additionally note that a "list of countries" has been tried before. It was a content fork of list of sovereign states. There were differences, sure - it relied upon a definition of the word "country". Trouble was, that definition had no basis in sources but appeared to have been invented by Wikipedians. This was why it was redirected. Other inclusion criteria have been suggested - including the kitchen sink criterion proposed here - but none that created an even vaguely workable list without OR or POV.
This time around, the article that is being pushed for is not just a content fork but a POV fork. The whole point of having a new article at "list of countries" appears to be as a means of promoting the POV that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be considered to have equivalent status to Belgium, Australia, the United States and Brazil. Such POV should not be considered acceptable. Pfainuk talk 15:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the redirect is acceptable and have done so from the start. However some of the arguments you and Taivo are advancing are not. If we had a list of sovereign states but called it a list of countries that would be factually incorrect. No one asserts that England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland has sovereign status so there is no POV position there. If we have a list of countries, then to exclude them is a POV position. And thats before we go onto Greenland etc. etc. So please back off on the POV accusations and (although this is not you) the we americans call it so, therefore it is so arguments and we might make progress --Snowded TALK 15:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That you may dislike my argument does not make them unacceptable. I stand by my position that treating England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as though they should be are equivalent to sovereign states, which is what some have argued we should do here, is POV.
If we were to have an article at "list of countries", there is no reason why we could not restrict it to sovereign states, provided that that was specified in the lede. This is, as has been demonstrated, a very common definition of the word "country", so such a definition would not be in any way inaccurate. Indeed, I would expect that this is what many paper encyclopædias do. Specifying what definition we're using in the lede is important: all lists on Wikipedia should specify their inclusion criteria in the lede. It is the lede, not the title, that determines in detail of the content of the list.
I note that it is fairly trivial to source the fact that US states are sovereign. I cite Article I, Section 26 of the Louisiana state constitution and the website of the Utah State Capitol as examples of Louisiana and Utah each being described as a "sovereign state" in a reliable source. In your view, is it POV to exclude Louisiana and Utah from the list of sovereign states? This appears to be your argument here.
For the purpose of article naming, we need a shorthand for the concept that we all understand and are currently describing using the words "sovereign state" (a description that I have no objection to). That shorthand - and hence the title - doesn't need to define the list, only to describe it. While I'm not arguing for a change, I see no reason why "country" should not be used in place of "sovereign state" in lists - provided that the the precise definition of the word "country" that we are using (the inclusion criterion) is defined in the lede of the list.
Given the significant disagreement over the precise meaning of the word "country", however, a general "list of countries" based on other criteria (such as the kitchen-sink rule proposed by some) is likely to be doomed to failure. It leads to odd results, and significant issues of POV and OR. You may well find areas of equal official and cultural status being treated differently because one describes itself as a country and another as a nation, or similarly hair-splittingly-small differences. It provides a list that can never be complete. It is, in short, a bad idea. Pfainuk talk 16:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me one diff of anyone claiming that England, Wales etc. are sovereign states. I doubt you can find one in this or any related threads. --Snowded TALK 16:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor, for that matter, have I said - or implied - that anyone has actually claimed that they are sovereign states. There is a difference between being treated as equivalent to sovereign states and actually being sovereign states. What some people here are advocating is a page that suggests that England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated as equivalent to sovereign states. Which isn't neutral.
Since you do not respond to it, can I take it that you accept my point regarding the fact that article titles describe list contents, rather than defining them, and that it is not POV for a "list of countries" that contains suitable clarification in the lede to exclude England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Pfainuk talk 18:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straw Poll for List of Countries Discussion[edit]

Please indicate without discussion your feelings toward the following options.

  • Make List of countries a full article with hatnotes to List of sovereign states and Lists of countries and territories.
    • Possible support. Oppose without a rename. --Taivo (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as one valid option --Snowded TALK 07:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose creation of POV fork. Pfainuk talk 08:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends. Nightw 11:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support. (No WP:CFORK as "country" and "sovereign state" are not synonyms) Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Peter E. James (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as one valid option (and as a slight preference) --Mais oui! (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Outback the koala (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support No content fork. It's a no brainer and a big part of wikipedia rules. A verifiable country (not sovereign state) should always be part of an article called List of countries. If not, then perhaps a pedia site could be set up for those who wish to ignore verifiable sources. Carson101 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The term "country" has multiple meanings and isn't WP:PRECISE enough to define a single topic. Just as it would be inappropriate to have List of sovereign states at List of countries, it would be equally inappropriate to make this article a list based on one of the other definitions of the term. An indiscriminate list of anything ever called a "country", regardless of which of the multiple meanings of the word being used, isn't notable. Perhaps a List of constituent countries, for non-sovereign subnational constituent countries, would be a reasonable compromise. TDL (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - seems rather messy to have to cast a vote in every section, but as others have done so... I oppose this solution because I support the one above.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as second preference to the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Oppose we have already been here and it was the POV warring that persuaded me that on page containing countries/nations/states was appropriate so that we did not end up with endless arguments over 3 pages. The problem is that either country is a content fork if used to mean sovereign state, and if entities such as England is included in the list, then what about "Shakespeare county" (book cover) or "bandit country" (book cover)? what makes England suitable for the list but not those two? The logic for a list of countries is similar to lets have a "list of lands": New Zealand, England, Ireland, Scotland, but not France or Wales because they are not lands, or do we define lands to mean countries ... but then what does country mean -- well usually it means state ... much better to go with a redirect for "list of countries" and a hat note on "list of sovereign states" for when people do not mean list that type of country. -- PBS (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin[edit]
Um, have you even read WP:Canvassing? Under the heading "Appropriate notification" you will find:
"On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."
Taivo only notified editors who had previously participated in this RfD. He left the same neutrally worded notice to all editors who had previously left a !vote, but had not yet participated to the straw poll, including those editors whom he knew were opposed to his position ([5] versus [6]). And in fact, it was Snowded, who supports the creation of a disambiguation page, who suggested that Tavio should notify all involved editors of the ongoing straw poll. Before calling someone else's actions disgraceful you might want to take some time to read the policy. This certainly doesn't seem like inappropriate notification to me. TDL (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it. Did you? Snowded's suggestion noted "... you are of course free to notifiy EVERYONE who has taken part in this discussion about the straw poll." (Snowded's emphasis). The policy you quoted above concurs. You will note that User:Carson101 took part in the discussion on 11 July 2011 and 14 July 2011. Carson101 was not one of those favoured by Taivo's canvassing (16 July 2011). Carson101 did not take part in the vote until 18 July 2011. Taivo's TLDR response here even used Carson101's username, so he was certainly aware that Carson101 had taken part in the discussion and that he was opposed to Taivo's viewpoint. I think 'disgraceful' sums up Taivo's actions quite well, don't you? Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you need to examine the context, Daicaregos. I had placed as "votes" the overt, unambiguous, bolded votes noted above before the straw poll was conducted so that we had a record of all "votes". Snowded objected to this placement even though I had clearly marked them as previously being unambiguously noted. He suggested I contact them so that they could place their votes properly. That is just and only what I did--contact those editors who had previously placed unambiguous votes in the above discussion--whether they agreed with my position or not--so that they could replace their votes in the straw poll. So it still fits within the permitted uses of canvassing--contacting all of a specific group of editors, not based on POV or position. The single editor that I did not contact out of that group was an editor who had subsequently been permanently banned from Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. Canvassing is meant to prohibit the solicitation of uninvolved editors to a discussion based on only one side of the discussion--stacking the deck, so to speak. Since all the editors I contacted were already involved in the discussion, it fails to meet the requirements of inappropriate canvassing. Your pursuit of this supposed "inappropriate canvassing" is not sincere, but is simply a desperate attempt to use wikilawyering to discredit your main opponent in this discussion. I suggest you use your time more constructively and profitably on Wikipedia. Your arguments have failed to sway editors to your POV here, and wikilawyering is unlikely to sway more. --Taivo (talk) 11:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bold my first vote, Taivo... does that mean you shouldn't have contacted me?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Amakuru, but you clearly wrote "Oppose" right above a bolded "Oppose", so it was fairly unambiguous and not subject to interpretation. But, yes, technically, your vote wasn't bolded. So slap me with a wet noodle, :) --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think this is some sort of joke. Up to you, of course, but I don't find it at all amusing. My only question to you is: would you do the same again? Daicaregos (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is no joke, Daicargos, and you are completely wrong in your accusation of improper canvassing. Yes, I'd do it again because my announcements to these editors were proper, neutral and involved all the editors who had already expressed an opinion. You will notice that none of the other editors support you in this mindless waste of time. You are wrong and your accusation is nothing more than an attempt to distract editors from the fact that you have failed to convince a consensus here of your POV. --Taivo (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time making any more comments on this frivolous accusation. --Taivo (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm on the same "side" as Taivo in this earth shatteringly important debate, but I don't think you can really argue with the logic. A number of users (including me) thought they had cast a "vote" in the deletion discussion before the straw poll was initiated. It was surely therefore perfectly reasonable to go through and notify all those users that in fact their "vote" was in danger of being discarded because it happened to be cast before the debate evolved into a straw poll.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was a note for the closing admin, not for debate or to take the opportunity to make assumptions as to my motivation. Nevertheless, this is hardly frivolous. The relevant questions are: 1. Did Taivo inform everyone of the vote, who was involved in the discussion, but had not yet voted? No (e.g. SilkTork (the proposer of this RfD), Carson101, Rannpháirtí anaithnid; 2. Were those not informed by Taivo of the vote opposed to Taivo's view? Yes; 3. Does Taivo accept that this action was inappropriate canvassing? No; 4. Would Taivo repeat the inappropriate inappropriate canvassing when faced with similar circumstances? Yes. Admin action is required here. Daicaregos (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This frivolous complaint is invalid and Daicaregos' arguments are invalid for the following reasons: 1. I notified everyone who had already unambiguously voted, but whose vote was not recorded in the straw poll. Snowded objected to simply manually moving the votes. 2. I notified even those who had voted in opposition to my POV--except for one Daicaregos supporter who had been subsequently blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. 3. This was not inappropriate canvassing since there was no attempt to exclude anyone who had already cast a vote--whether they agreed with my POV or not. Indeed, it was suggested by an editor who supported Daicaregos' POV. 4. Since this was not inappropriate canvassing, then it would be appropriate to do again in similar circumstances--getting voters to recast their votes in a straw poll rather than moving their votes manually. Daicaregos has been informed of the inappropriateness of this complaint, but continues to push his misreading and complete misrepresentation of WP:CANVASS, wasting time and effort in his losing cause. His motives are plain enough--he has failed to build a consensus for his recommendation here and is lashing out in retribution against the editor who was most vocal in opposing his position. --Taivo (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

AXML[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "AXML" is not even mentioned in XML. a3_nm (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of it, and I've been writing XML parsers for over ten years now, which by the way go like shit off a shovel compared to most freely available implementations. AXML is probably some arbitrary jargon word, like JXML or TXML or whatever other flavour of XML you fancy, and I would say delete as harmful. With my usual criterion, does this help or hurt the intelligent but ignorant reader wanting to find out about something? That reader will, not finding AXML, type XML and lo and behold get XML. If he actuallx wanted to find out about axles, and mistyped, he is going to end up in a completely strange world of XML when he just wanted to know about axles, or Axl Rose, or whatever. So I think for the purposes of search, which is what we are here for, does it help or hinder a search? I would say it hinders, and for that reason (and no other) should be deleted.
It kind of reminds me, about twenty years ago I wrote a spelling checker for VAX computers, as a bit of fun. At that time, WordPerfect and Microsoft and IBM and Borland were all boasting how many words they had in their dictionaries. I realised, after a bit, that the way to make a spelling checker work is to have fewer words in your dictionary. People don't want a false positive of "En" being accepted just because it is a printer's unit of measure and you can use it in Scrabble, they probably meant to type "An" or "In" or "On" (unless they are printers, but they are the worst spellers anyway). So to cut words out actually makes it more valuable; similarly, to cut out redirects to unlikely topics makes the search work better. That is my only criterion. And so if others say it does no harm to keep it, I will agree with that, but I do tend to try similar search terms and see what I get when I type them. As Ovid said, add little to little and you have a whole pile. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_10&oldid=1144410399"