Talk:List of countries and dependencies by area/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pakistan

If you search Pakistan's area in Google it says it has 881,913 km2 but in the article it says Pakistan's area is 881,912 km2 so please fix that, thank you. Kindlyanswer (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Google may be channeling Wikipedia's Pakistan article, which gives the higher total but apparently reckons it the same way we do: 796,095 km2 for Pakistan w/o Kashmir + 13,297 km2 for Azad Kashmir + 72,520 km2 for Gilgit-Baltistan = 881,912 km2. If so, their total is wrong. BTW, the area for Gilgit-Baltistan is given as 72,971 km2 at that article. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The dispute over third and forth place by area is poorly adjudicated.

The dispute over third and forth place by area is poorly adjudicated. If fresh water lakes count at all towards a country/nation's area, then four of the five great lakes between the USA and Canada should be counted as they are delineated by treaty. Lake Michigan is entirely inside the USA. Using old books with different definitions should not be cause to rewrite history, or facts. Inclusion of the great lakes makes the USA larger than China and it's not even close. It rubs my fur the wrong way when some people use Wikipedia to make political statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoconshooter (talk • contribs) 22:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I honestly do not know what argument you are trying to make. Are you saying the great lakes aren't counted? They must be, because Canada is ranked above the U.S., even though the U.S. has more land. --Golbez (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2019

Please make palestine non romanized letters and numbered as ISO gives it a number, it is a un observer state, and is recognized by 71% of countries 77.42.250.60 (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. I'm afraid your request is somewhat incomprehensible. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2019

Indonesia should be placed on the sixth place as it has about 1,826,440 km^2 of land area, and 6,159,032 km^2 of total sea area, adding up to 7,985,472 km^2 of area. 77% of its territory is water.<https://books.google.co.id/books?id=E5NafsG5RiEC&pg=PA99&dq=Indonesia+land+sea+total+area&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwnqTcm4nZAhUlR48KHbGUApwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Indonesia%20land%20sea%20total%20area&f=false> 114.125.39.247 (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The list does not include sea area; the "water area" mentioned is all inland lakes and the like. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

France/Ukraine

Not sure if this has been discussed before. If France at 42 is the "third-largest country in Europe", how can Ukraine at 45 be the "second-largest country in Europe"? Could depend on definitions, but it does appear to be a bit self-contradictory. 93.117.220.196 (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

As the explanation in France's entry notes, its ranking is based on its total global territory, including areas outside of "metropolitan [European] France," such as French Guiana, etc. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

State of Palestine

It is in List of sovereign states but not numbered? Is there any reason why? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states and delendent territories, only generally recognized sovereign states are numbered. If you wish to change this, start a RfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead does not say "generally recognized" it says "sovereign states". What does "generally recognized" mean? That's OR. Who decided about the numbering? Why do I have to start an RFC?Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked in the archives, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area/Archive_2#Rank_number, it says in there "I notice that all UN member states plus Taiwan have got a rank number here in the list, since Taiwan is not UN member or observer state, the number should be removed. Otherwise, Kosovo, South Ossetia, West Sahara, Artsakh, Abkhazia should all get the rank number." and "It's weird. Jiangyu made a good point, only the universally recognised 193 UN member states plus 2 UN observer states should be ranked. Taiwan is less recogised than Kosovo or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic internationally, therefore it shouldn't be ranked at all."

So on that basis, Palestine should be numbered.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

There have been discussions on this issue in other articles as well, as you well know, since you commenced the same pro-Palestine POV pushing in "List of countries and dependncies by population" and received the same answer. Once again, if you wish for the State of Palestine to be classified as a generally recognized sovereign state, then you should start a RfD, but please keep in mind that Wikipeia describes the world as it is, not as we may aspire it to be, and that the State of Palestine was unsuccessful in its recent attempt to be admitted as a UN member state and that it is recognized by only 3 of the 15 countries with the highest GDP. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the consensus in this article shown above, UN states and observer states should be numbered and I have done so.Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

As you know from the Talk page discussion that you commenced in a similar article, this has been discussed in numerous articles, and the consensus was that only generally recognized sovereign states are numbered. If you wish to change this, please start a RfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 14:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus for this page I have extracted from the archives and is shown above. According to that consensus, Palestine is to be numbered. If you believe that this page has an alternative consensus somewhere in the archives that I have missed, kindly point me to it.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was achieved in numerous other pages, as you well know. You made a WP:BRD edit, were reverted and informed of the consensus, and instead of seeking a RfD you submitted four Bold edit again in violation of the rules. Please seek a RfD. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A consensus achieved in some other page does not apply to this page. I showed you the consensus for this page and my edit was in conformity with it.Selfstudier (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus you referred to above doesn't mention Palestine in particular. Also, you seem to be threatening sanctions in your edit summary. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: It refers to UN observer states of which there two, the Vatican and Palestine:

Jiangyu made a good point, only the universally recognised 193 UN member states plus 2 UN observer states should be ranked. Taiwan is less recogised than Kosovo or the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic internationally, therefore it shouldn't be ranked at all.

This is absolutely clear cut, not only that I asked for this supposed alternative consensus and it doesn't exist. In fact because of this issue, this is an Israel Palestine issue and subject to ARBPIA sanctions broadly construed (even if the notice has not been posted).Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For clarification, I have now added the relevant ARBPIA notice .Selfstudier (talk) 11:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking a discussion among a few editors from over a year ago, and ignoring all of the discussions from numerous articles that similarly list countries (such as the one listing countries by population, where you currently are embroiled in a Talk page argument) where a consensus was achueved to number only generally recognized sovereign states. Besides, the discussion that you bring up was focused on why Taiwan should not be numbered, which would be the case whether the article used a UN-only or classification based on levels of recognition, so that statement about "UN member or observer states" is what is known in the legal fueld as an "obiter dictum (a remark sid in passing). Such discussion certainly does not override a multi-article consensus.

As for WP:ARBPIA applying here (for which you have given notice), I don't know about that (a few months ago an editor sought to apply ARBPIA to an article listing Asian countries because it involved Palestine's classification, and the Admins ruled against him), but, if it does, then you can't make your Bold reversion again until 24 hours have elapsed since you reverted Rhtwiki.

Once again, start an RfC if you think that the existing concensus achievd over numerous similar articles should be changed. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have asked several times to be pointed in the direction of this mystery consensus and no-one seems to be able to do it which leads me to believe that it does not exist. Also, I searched the archives and what I found is all I was able to find using reasonable search expressions so that is not cherry picking, it is all that I was able to find and if you cannot find an alternative consensus for this page then you have no case. it's really that simple.Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was achieved over many years in dozens of articles, not just in their Talk pages, but also in User Talk pages and in edit summaries whenever someone renumbered to give Taiwan, Palestine or Kosovo a number. It should be clear to you from your interaction with longtime editors of different articles that that is the established consensus. Of course you are welcome to obtain a new consensus that differs from it, but you can't donit through unilateral edits and threats of sanctions. Why don't you start a RfC for all articles that list countries abd provide a numbered rank? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that there is no "consensus". Here is a list supposedly covered by your non existent consensus List of Middle Eastern countries by population.Selfstudier (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me get this straight ... you ignore the consensus achieved in dozens of articles that list of all of the countries of the world, in which the State of Palestine (and Kosovo, and Taiwan) is not number-ranked, and the smoking gun with which you come up in which the State of Palestine is number-ranked ... is List of Middle Eastern countries by population? Wow, who would have thought that editors of an article on Middle Eastern countries would develop a different consensus than did the dozens of more general articles? By the way, the article number-ranked "the Palestinian Territories" even before the State of Palestine was given UN-observer-state status, so f your argument proves anything, it proves too much. An article that number-ranked Palestine before it was declared a UN observer state obviously will continue to number-rank it after it was given such status. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)~

Get this straight, there IS no consensus, you are describing a process of normal editing, nothing more. Write as many walls of irrelevant text as you please, it makes absolutely no difference to me.Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, over at List of countries and dependencies by population it has been explained to me that the numbering decision there is based on the "independence" column of ISO. Is that the case here as well?Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Getting there slowly, IF what I have just written above is correct, then numbering according to the "independence" column does not automatically follow. At List of countries and dependencies by population it is explained that in 2015 "The denumbering is not a necessary result, but was "decided" through "silent consensus" in 2015."(ISO being the consensus for these types of Lists since 2009 for inclusion criteria but not for numbering). If there is such a "silent consensus" here then the numbering criteria being used need to be specified in the article, at the beginning of the list and in the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

This [OR Edit] by AutoH2ORebublican of 17 February, 2019 (his first appearance and first edit at this page) removed the long standing numbering of State of Palestine (since 2013, when ISO adopted the name change to Palestine) giving as a reason "Removing Taiwan and Palestine from numbering so as to treat them the same as Kosovo and Western Sahara, the other de facto states whose sovereignty is not generally recognized internationally (but are recognized by more than a handfull of UN member states) As well as being OR, this is completely incorrect. Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Palestine was numbered from 2012 until the edit described above was made. I have restored that consensus.Selfstudier (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of good order, I should record that it has been pointed out to me that although it is true that Palestine was always numbered, the "split" into numbered/unnumbered only occurred in October 2015; this affects the length of time of prior consensus but nothing else.Selfstudier (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The description Selfstudier gives of this article's history regarding inclusion in the numbering system is far from accurate. When then numbering system was "split" in September 2015, Taiwan and Kosovo were numbered, Palestine was not. Some days later, Taiwan and Kosovo were removed from the numbering, but this was reverted. One month after that, Palestine was added. From then on, there were several ins and outs, also including Western Sahara and even Greenland! This lasted at least well into 2017. When Palestine and Taiwan were removed from the numbering in February this year, they had both been included in the numbering system for a period. It will be very difficult to make a case for there being a long-time consensus for including Palestine and not Taiwan or indeed any selection. So instead of trying to find a "longstanding consensus" to revert back to, we should consentrate on agreeing on the criteria for inclusion in the numbering system. --T*U (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, I am not overly concerned about any prior consensus or for how long it lasted. What I am primarily concerned about is the way that List articles have been treated by various editors and one in particular over a long time period and the edit summaries given in support of those edits. Nor is it clear to me why there should be "hidden" inclusion criteria (eg using the independence column of iso).Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I found the time to check back now and for all of 2017 and 2018 until the offending edit, Palestine was numbered, so a similar period as in the "population" list, somewhat longer in fact.Selfstudier (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

European Union

Is "World" a country? No but it's in the list unranked as bonus information.
Is "Antarctica" a country? No but it's in the list unranked as bonus information.
Why can't "European Union" be on the list unranked as bonus information?
OnchePower (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't part of that decision, so I can only guess that those exceptions were to include figures that were interesting but difficult (for the world) or impossible (for Antarctica, where there aren't any country areas to add up) to derive. On the other hand, the EU's total area is easier to derive, by adding up the areas of its member states (which now seems in the midst of being in flux), and its inclusion could be taken as needing to include all non-sovereign treaty organizations, of which there are many. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is "France" a country?? Yes, and it includes all the areas it includes, but it's in the list twice; first based on its totality and then as if it had included only its European part. Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Rob984 changed a note about Morocco's area, saying:

If the whole of Western Sahara is included (which Morocco controls approximately two-thirds of), the area would be 710,800 km2 (274,460 sq mi) and the rank would be #39.

What about if only the part that Morocco controls were included?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, For each and every country I'm in favour of providing:

• Undisputed area
• Total controlled area
• Total claimed area

(obviously, only in the cases where they differ).

Ultimately the data in the main columns of the table is always going to be bias – even if based on the broad consensus of Wikipedia editors. So listing all figures and then linking to wider coverage of the disputes can only better inform the reader.

Might take some research to find those figures though, in regards to Morocco's territory in Western Sahara, I could only find an approximate "two-thirds" from the Wikipedia article.

Rob984 (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn't area of Russia include Crimea?

According to Russian law, republic of Crimea and city of Sevastopol have equal rights with the other 83 federal subjects. --45.58.89.12 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Because that would be a WP:POV & WP:UNDUE edit. Most of the world does not recognize Crimea as being legally part of Russia.

• "UN Resolution Condemns Russia's Occupation of Crimea - U.S. News®". US News & World Report. 2019-12-09. Retrieved 2020-01-11.

Peaceray (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. The fact is Crimea is as Russian as Falklands is British despite Ukrainian and Argentine claims.--45.58.89.12 (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

RFC Should Palestine be numbered?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Palestine be numbered? Selfstudier (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in this part:

Yes It is included in ISO_3166-1 and in List of sovereign states. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

No, for the reasons I set forth below under "Discussion." AuH2ORepublican (talk) 10:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Repeating the request from above, please Enter Yes or No with one-sentence explanations in this part (additional commentary beyond one sentence in the next part).Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. Palestine is not a country; Pakistan is. Georgia guy (talk) 14:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Implicit to United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19 is recognition of Palestinian sovereignty. Jschnur (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak yes. First, with respect to the OP, I'm not going to be able to reduce my answer to a simple one-sentence up-or-down response, given the nuances presented by this particular question--which is just one of many reasons why it is inadvisable to try to constrain the format of !votes in the fashion proposed above, as it can have a reductive influence on feedback and a polarizing/entrenching impact on the consensus process. The reason the issue evades a simple yes/no response is that no policy is precisely on point here. Typically whether a particular entry belongs in a particular list article is a question that comes down to WP:WEIGHT. However, in this instance, the universe of relevant sources is so massive, and the opinions so varied (and often charged) on the matter, that is (to all practical purposes here) more or less impossible to say with any degree of certainty where weight lays in that ocean of perspectives. One might argue that this or that international institution or X number of governments take one position over the other, but at the end of the day, under this project's policies, all such arguments would just be different flavours of WP:original research as to which standard is most compelling.

So placed in that position, it seems to me that our best bet is to go with a utility analysis: articles should function to provide the reader with information and framing that they might reasonably expect to find on said article, all things being equal. I think it entirely possible that a not insignificant number of users of this article might want to know the size of Palestinian territories, relative to other regional entities, regardless of whether or not the territories represent a sovereign nation. The only contrary interest on the other side is the argument that we should not include the entry in the list because it may be a misleading label: but again, given the complications of the WP:WEIGHT analysis and the fact that there will be advocates making the same argument in the other direction, I would say the pragmatic argument is the one which must tip the scales. Anyway, even if I was called upon to make my best-guess call on where the balance of WP:WEIGHT does fall on this issue (which of course is not how we ought to be establishing weight), !vote would likely go towards inclusion on that score as well (though, again, its one of the most convoluted and difficult to establish weight determinations one might undertake on this project. Sorry, OP, but I hope you can see why the above could not be summarized merely as "Yes, because it's more practical" without significant risk of that position being misread. Snow ^{let's rap} 16:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - There are bunch of non-countries listed (e.g. Isle of Mann, Monaco, Andorra). NickCT (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• No It should be included in list of sovereign states for the sake of neutrality, but should not be included in the list pertaining to area. It is simply to hard to land on a specific number.HAL333 00:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• No – Palestine is too unstable, and its recognition too limited, to make a strong case for inclusion amongst the numbered, although it's a close call. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Put further comments and discussion in this part:

Palestine was numbered for two years prior to this [Edit of 17 February, 2019]. Selfstudier (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: The RfC is malformed. It is headed "Numbering criteria", but the question asked is not about criteria, but about the numbering of one specific entity without any criteria mentioned. --T*U (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I had assumed that editors would take into account the numbering criteria when answering the question, in case that shouldnt be assumed, I have changed the section title so it is the same as the RFC question.Selfstudier (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I voted "No" above, and given that the one-sentence limit on explanations in the Survey section is being enforced strictly, I moved my two-sentence explanation down here. In Wikipedia articles listing sovereign states and dependent territories, the long-established consensus (achieved over many years in dozens of articles, not just in their Talk pages, but also in User Talk pages and in edit summaries whenever someone renumbered to give Taiwan, Palestine or Kosovo a number) is to give a numbered rank only to generally recognized sovereign states. It is POV to (i) claim that the State of Palestine, a state that was unsuccessful in its recent application for UN membership and that is not recognized by 12 of the 15 UN members with the highest GDPs (i.e., it is not recognized by the U.S., Germany, the UK, Japan, France, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Spain, Australia or Mexico), has achieved general international recognition, or (ii) cease using general recognition as the criterion for number-ranking sovereign states yet apply such change only to Palestine and not to Kosovo, Taiwan (ROC), Western Sahara (SADR), Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Artsakh, Northern Cyprus, Transnitria or Somaliland. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think you could link some of the "dozens of articles", I am having difficulty finding any other than those edited by yourself. I am not aware of any requirement of anyone, anywhere, to recognize states based on size of GDP of approving states. Do you have a reference or source for this? You say Palestine was "unsuccessful" in its application for UN membership, the only UN vote of which I am aware is that which approved Palestine status as an Observer State. Do you know of some other vote? "cease using general recognition"? I am confused, who is advocating that? (and what is "general recognition" anyway?)Selfstudier (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

There are indeed dozens of articles with such formulation, although you have been making POV-pushing edits to many of them to get to your desired result, which is pretending that the State of Palestine is a generally recognized sovereign state.

And are you really making the Orwellian claim that the State of Palestine was not unsuccessful in its attempt to be admitted as a member state of the United Nations? Here is how the Palestine 194 article describes the events of 2011:

"On 16 September 2011, President Abbas announced that an application would be made for the admission to full membership to the United Nations for the State of Palestine, ending speculation about which route the government would take. Abbas submitted the application to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 23 September, immediately prior to delivering his address to the General Assembly. The territorial basis referred to were the 4 June 1967 borders, with al-Quds al-Sharif as its capital.[52] The application stated that it was being submitted in line with "the Palestinian people's natural, legal and historic rights", citing the 1947 partition plan as well as the 1988 declaration of independence and its subsequent acknowledgement by General Assembly Resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988. It also reaffirmed the state's commitment to the achievement of a "just, lasting and comprehensive resolution" to the conflict "based on the vision of two states living side by side in peace and security".[53] The application was referred to the Security Council's committee on membership on 28 September.[54]

In order for a state to gain membership in the General Assembly, its application must have the support of two-thirds of member states with a prior recommendation for admission from the Security Council. This requires, in particular, at least 9 in favour and the absence of a veto from any of the council's five permanent members.[55] At the prospect of a veto from the United States, Palestinian leaders signalled they might opt instead for a more limited upgrade to "non-member state" status, which, in contrast to full membership, requires a simple majority in the General Assembly.[56] This was pushed as a compromise option by several European members.[57] Another potential course of action that al-Malki announced was to overrule the veto through the Uniting for Peace emergency procedure, which requires a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly.[58]

On 11 November a report was approved by the Security Council which concluded that the Council had been unable "to make a unanimous recommendation" on membership for Palestine.[59][60] Diplomats suggested that a formal vote on membership by the Council, which only takes place if called for by one of its members, depends on whether one is pushed for by Palestine.[60] It was doubted that such a vote, if called, would receive the requisite 9 favourable votes due to numerous expected abstentions, thus negating the possibility of an American veto.[60]

By the fall of 2012, the Palestinians had decided to suspend their application for full membership in favour of seeking an upgrade in status to "non-member observer state". However, their membership application was not abandoned[61] and the UNGA resolution upgrading their status passed in November 2012 "expresses the hope that the Security Council will consider favourably the application submitted on 23 September 2011 by the State of Palestine for admission to full membership in the United Nations".[62]"

Had the State of Palestine been successful in its application, it would have been admitted a a UN member state and we would not be having this conversation. But the State of Palestine put its application for membership on hold upon being advised by its UN supporters that the application was going to be defeated in the UN Security Council, and switched gears to a "UN observer" vote that did not require Security Council approval. How was the State of Palestine's 2011 application for membership anything but "unsuccessful"? AuH2ORepublican (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"although you have been making POV-pushing edits to many of them to get to your desired result, which is pretending that the State of Palestine is a generally recognized sovereign state."

Palestine is a sovereign state and a UN observer state (not "observer", that's a different thing) and that's why its in List of sovereign states. I don't know what you mean by "generally recognized" (that's OR), it has roughly the same level of recognition as Israel.

I have been editing List articles for about 3 weeks, if I should catch up to your 4 years, then you can perhaps speak about POV pushing.Selfstudier (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@HAL333: Re your survey comment, if by your comment you mean that the two figures given in the land + water columns add up to the CIA figure for the West Bank only (5860), you are correct. Regardless, the CIA is not a reliable source for Palestine as it reflects the view of the US government, there are NPOV sources that treat Palestine as one entity rather than two.[Here, State of Palestine, 6020] Selfstudier (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: Re your survey comment, the criteria currently given in the lead don't at the moment require a "case to be made", they simply state that Palestine should be numbered. So if no consensus is the outcome here, then the lead numbering criteria will need to be changed in such a way as to exclude (only?) Palestine.Selfstudier (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The article on ISO 3166-1 seems to give Palestine the status it gives to Taiwan, which is unnumbered here. Dhtwiki (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: That is not about "numbering" that is about a sovereignty dispute. According to the lead of this article, only entities NOT mentioned in ISO are not numbered (eg Kosovo). If you are saying that Taiwan should be numbered based on this, I agree with you. The fact is that the whole idea of "numbering" has been invented by Wikipedians, it's OR. Although it isn't immediately obvious from the table, 193 UN member states plus the Vatican (an observer state like Palestine) have been "numbered".Selfstudier (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The second paragraph of the lead states:

Entries in this list include, but are not limited to, those in the ISO 3166-1 standard, which includes sovereign states and dependent territories. Largely unrecognised states not in ISO 3166-1 are included in the list in ranked order, but are not given a rank number.

"Largely unrecognised states" is linked to List of states with limited recognition which lists Palestine and Taiwan, but not the Vatican. The Vatican isn't listed at ISO 3166-1 either, so it may be regarded as exceptional in being recognized here. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki:It says "Largely unrecognised states" NOT IN ISO but Palestine IS in iso. So that objection doesn't work either.Selfstudier (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that leaves us with its treatment is consistent with Taiwan and that both their treatments may be inconsistent with this article's stated criteria, although Taiwan's present, possibly inconsistent, classification is the result of discussion, IIRC. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that instead of jumping though hoops in an effort to exclude one or more states while at the same time trying to avoid excluding others the simplest answer is to abandon "numbering" altogether and just number every entry for convenience. If people want to discuss the political status of this or that entity the way to do that is with commentary not with a number.Selfstudier (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: The original heading you gave this RfC was "Numbering criteria", but you changed it to "Should Palestine be numbered?" when I raised a question about the inconsistency between the heading and the question. I have not taken part in this discussion, since I found it hopeless to discuss if one specific country should be included in the numbering or not without discussing the criteria first. If the conclusion of this discussion is to "change the rules" by abandoning the numbering, then it is not an answer to the question raised. --T*U (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I look at things simply, if no to numbering Palestine when the criteria say it should be, then change the criteria so as to exclude it. Else number it.Selfstudier (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The RFC has now expired and it is clear that there is no consensus for numbering Palestine. Although it was numbered for 2 years prior to 17 February, 2019 (per above), it has not been numbered since then and no-one objected (other than myself) therefore that must be the consensus. Consequently the criteria on the page are in contradiction with this consensus and I have amended them to reflect the actual consensus position which is that all UN member states plus the Vatican are numbered.Selfstudier (talk) 10:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your conclusion about using the "UN+Vatican" as criteria, simply because criteria has not been discussed. I, for one, oppose to state criteria that are based on making an unexplaind exemption for one country (Vatican). I do not quite see how the UN membership enters into it, either. I can suggest another definition that fits what you call the actual consensus position: The countries classified as "Independent" in ISO 3166-1 are given a rank number. I am aware that this criterion have not been discussed either, but at least it has some measure of consistency, since ISO is already mentioned. --T*U (talk) 11:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

ISO has been used for inclusion criteria not for numbering criteria. I haven't altered that at all. All I have done is to make the exclusion of Palestine numbering consistent with the criteria given in the lead and since ISO country names in any case rely on UN sources it seems the most logical thing imo. Of course if you think some previously undiscussed criteria that does not appear to relate to anything at all is better, you could suggest that instead.Selfstudier (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Only that the UN+Vatican criterion is just as previously undiscussed as the one I have suggested, and I fail to see that is any more logical. --T*U (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with it being on the face of it illogical to number the Vatican, that is the approach being taken by one editor on some list articles as well as at the same time as denumbering (or differentiating in some other manner) Palestine. I have clarified the situation as regards Palestine for this particular article, if you want to denumber the Vatican I wouldn't object.Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What kind of strawman is that? I have never said it is illogical to number the Vatican. I have not suggested denumbering the Vatican. I have suggested using a criterion that does not say anything specific about the Vatican (but would de facto include it in the numbering). --T*U (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, it is you that seems interested in the Vatican, I am not bothered one way or another. I am only concerned that the numbering criteria reflect the numbering and now it does, which it did not before. Since ISO gets its info from the UN to start with, it is not surprising that the numbering should directly relate to the UN member states, the Vatican apart.(If I looked back I would probably find that the same editor who denumbered Palestine is likely responsible for numbering the Vatican since he seems to be doing that elsewhere. Its also possible, likely even, that the original, now overturned, consensus was based on the List of Sovereign States that includes both Palestine and the Vatican along with 11 other states in addition to the member states) In any event, I don't see any point in introducing new unknown criteria when you have perfectly acceptable and well known criteria already existing, namely UN member states.Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please stop misrepresenting my view with comments like it is you that seems interested in the Vatican. No, I am absolutely not interested in the Vatican, and I have not said that I am interested in the Vatican; I am interested in criteria. It is you that bring the Vatican into this by defining numbering for UN members and the Vatican. I find the criterion "UN+Vatican" completely illogical without an explanation as to why the Vatican should have their own "rule". The criterion "UN members" is more logical, although I am not sure why UN membership should be relevant (it is not that many years since Switzerland by their own choice was a non-member). The criterion "UN members and observers" forces the same question about UN relevance, but it could ascertain inclusion of countries that choose not to be UN members, but could have been (like Switzerland earlier and the Vatican today).

You say I don't see any point in introducing new unknown criteria. Well, why have you then introduced the "UN+Vatican" criterion? --T*U (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You said above "I, for one, oppose to state criteria that are based on making an unexplaind exemption for one country (Vatican)" and I took that to mean you were interested in the Vatican, I certainly did not intentionally misrepresent your views. I already answered your second question, the criteria need to match the actual numbering and now they do, whereas at least since February, they didn't. The UN is not "unknown" and it seems clear that is how the numbering came to be in its present form, it can hardly be an accident that all 193 member states are numbered (leaving aside the Vatican).Selfstudier (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Then I would claim that it can hardly be an accident that all countries defined as "Independent" in ISO 3166 are numbered (not leaving aside any country). That criterion would just as well match the actual numbering (even better, since we do not have do make any exceptions). And again, please do not misrepresent my comments. I have not stated that the UN is unknown, I have said that the "UN+Vatican" criterion is just as unknown (in the sense of new unknown criteria [your choice of words]) as the ISO 3361 independence criterion. --T*U (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

You can claim that but as you have pointed out it has not been discussed whereas the UN criteria have been discussed on numerous occasions for numerous lists and over many years. The fact is you are trying to bring in a completely new idea not mentioned here or anywhere else previously and as you know from my query at the ISO page, the definition being used by ISO for "independence" is unknown or at least behind a paywall (obviously not independent doesn't mean dependent territory in the case of Palestine so what does it mean?) Since the criteria for numbering now match the actual numbering, it seems to me that there is no longer a problem to solve. (well, unless you think that numbering the Vatican is anomalous but that is equally simple to solve, denumber it and just leave it as UN member states only).Selfstudier (talk)

There is no need to look for a definition of "not independent". It simply means that it is not "independent". To take another example out of the blue: If we have defined "blue", we do not have to define "not blue" with a separate definition including a description of red, yellow, orange etc. It is sufficient to define it as the negation of "blue".

I am aware that the UN criteria have been discussed all over the place, but that does not help us much, since you have unilaterally given the criterion "UN+Vatican", which has not been discussed here at all (and which I have never seen anywhere else). Can you show any consensus in any list anywhere in Wiki for use of that criterion?

You have no consensus for your criterion, so it looks like we need a new RfC, this time starting with the criteria. --T*U (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Numbering is an unsourced Wikipedian invention and OR (on any basis other than for convenience). One has to ask the question what is the purpose of it? You appear to want to have a new (unsourced) definition/hoop simply in order to associate the Vatican with 193 UN member states, why? Why is it even necessary to differentiate between entities at all on a page purporting to be about areas of entities? As I said before, if including the Vatican is the problem, denumber it, simple, no one will argue against it. The resultant numbering would still be a type of OR but at least its a comprehensible and well understood form of OR as opposed to something completely new and probably worse form of OR.Selfstudier (talk) 13:29, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to demonstrate. Compare the pages List of countries and dependencies by population with List of countries by population (United Nations), the first currently has the numbering (although perhaps not for much longer) and the second is a clean UN based list (ISO anyway gets its data from the UN) numbered solely for convenience. I know which one I prefer.Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I must be extremely bad at formulating myself, since I am not able to make you understand that I am not especially interested in whether the Vatican is numbered or not (or if Palestine is numbered or not, or if Kosovo is numbered or not, or if Taiwan is numbered or not, ...). I do not want a specific definition in order to associate the Vatican with 193 UN member states, I want to discuss the criteria themselves.

It was you that changed the criterion in the article to fit the current numbering; I just suggested an alternative criterion that fits the current numbering just as well. I found your suggested criterion illogical in that it makes an exception for one specific country (without explaining why), but I see now that it was stupid of me to enter into that discussion, since it took the focus away from the criteria discussion.

I do have some sympathy for your Why is it even necessary to differentiate between entities at all comment. I am willing to listen to arguments for that. But that will have to be in a formal discussion about criteria, preferably a new RfC. --T*U (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, there's where we differ then, I think an RFC is completely unnecessary (and you obviously didn't think one was necessary either for most of this year when the lead criteria were completely out of sync with the actual numbering). If you actually don't care whether the Vatican is numbered but just don't like the fact that it is presently numbered, denumber it and the problem is solved, I doubt that anyone will revert it, I won't. I only included it in the lead criteria because it is currently numbered.Selfstudier (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I have lost count on how many times you have falsely assumed that I have a special interest in the Vatican. Now it is but just don't like the fact that it is presently numbered, which again is something I have never said and never meant. It is a bit hard to believe that you are in good faith when you repeatedly and consistently misrepresent my views against my explicit protests.

I think I am finished here. --T*U (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, I have made a proposal, no "numbering" or, in default of that, I can also live with numbering the UN member states. What's your proposal?Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Area of Nepal is changed; it's 147516sqkm now. 49.244.5.242 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, please provide a source for Nepal changing size. CMD (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

New map and area of Nepal

The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Nepal#New map and area of Nepal may be of interest to you. Thank you! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The Danish realm

I think we need a discussion on what to do when it comes to linking the Danish realm. Georgia guy (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Specifically User:Picklespitlizyr keeps saying that links to the Danish realm should simply link to the Denmark article. Georgia guy (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Please, don't be blatantly biased in Greenland's reality. Is inconsistent that in Denmark section the name that's "Denmark" and in those country's parts the name, by much, that's other. --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

While it is hard to understand what you are trying to say, I think that I get the gist of it. Please note that there is nothing biased about differentiating between Denmark and the Danish Realm; in fact, it is what NPOV dictates. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is inconsistent that in Denmark section the name that's "Denmark" and in those country's parts the name, by much, that's other.

@AuH2ORepublican: is hard to understand?

--Picklespitlizyr (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is hard to understand. CMD (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

"CMD" or AuH2ORepublican twin: 😔 --Picklespitlizyr (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Antarctica

Antarctica is not a country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

That's why it's not given a number in the table. Georgia guy (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

Antarctica is not a country this is misleading. 2605:8D80:421:43B4:49DE:8264:6F0A:32B9 (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

This is why it and the World are not ranked. CMD (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

FAQ

I think that this talk page needs an FAQ. Any opinions anyone has here?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Would this be a FAQ to address some of the controversies that often arise here, and how they've been settled? Of course, that's also addressed in at least some of the list's footnotes. I wouldn't be against it. It's always a matter of someone having to go to the trouble of doing the work involved. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Please include as one of the questions of the FAQ how China and the United States should be ordered, as well as how the list should deal with Denmark, and also any question you think is appropriate for the FAQ. Georgia guy (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You sound as though you think that I, or others, have volunteered to do the FAQ. That's not the case. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, can you try to put the FAQ in with whatever questions you can?? (This goes for anyone who sees the question.) Georgia guy (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that we need a FAQ. I just don't want to discourage others from trying. Usually, if you come up with an idea around here, you're volunteering to do the heavy lifting of implementing it. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Water Percentage Figures

From a practical standpoint (without cited evidence) some of the water percentage figures seem strangely non-comparable. Without verification of the figures, it is hard to dispute, however the notion that some of the figures represent, seems questionable, if only from the standpoint of credibility of the table values. A number of specific examples are listed below with potential reasoning:

Eritrea - Water 14% - seems extremely high given the desert nature of the entire country. Surrounding countries Ethiopia 0.7%, Djibouti 0.09%

Benin - Water 0.4 % - seems an order of magnitude lower compared to the surrounding countries of Ghana, Togo, and Nigeria

SquashEngineer (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

How to deal with Crimea

Until recently the list put Crimea in Ukraine, but someone changed it and made it say that Crimea belongs in Russia. Any discussion here?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, the UN recognizes Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine. Perhaps English Wikipedia knows better (no).Andrii Gladii (talk) 10:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Venezuela area

Somebody just added a note in Venezuela's area saying that there's an area it is defined as excluding. Is the point of view that Venezuela's area includes that area equally valid?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Paracel Islands

If the Spratly Islands are on the list, is it possible that the Paracel Islands should be too? After all, they both have an entry in the CIA World Factbook... just wondering.

Elipoloos123 (talk) 09:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Add more information on Australia about the size of it due to Australia’s foreign territories. 1.126.104.205 (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2020

Please edit figures for the territories de-facto controlled by Azerbaijan and Artsakh respectively after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war (notes 33 and 41). The territory de-facto controlled by Artsakh is reduced from 11,458 km2 to 3170 km2 according to this source: https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/blogs/83781/posts/45972 Mastersun25 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The reference provided looks like a blog to me. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2020

Sudan and South Sudan have had their land areas determined as 1,731,671sqm and 644,329sqm respectively, as per the most recent CIA world factbook Vuuthegreat (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done PratyyaG (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

Change the "United Kingdom" tag next to the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey to "British Crown Dependency". The Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey aren't, and have never been, a part of the United Kingdom so this is incorrect and needs fixing. IOMann01 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Is this one that you would like to address? Peaceray (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Peaceray, not really but the OP is correct. "(United Kingdom)" might be appropriate next to entries concerning British Overseas Territories but never in relation to Man or the Channel Islands. To describe either dependency as "United Kingdom" is flatly wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, OK, thanks! I will see about correcting this. Peaceray (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@IOMann01:  Done! I also pointed the British Crown dependency links to the appropriate sections of the Crown dependencies article. Peaceray (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

In the list there is Abkhazia, which is not a souvereign country recognised by UN, EU or any other international organization, that is a region which is a part of Georgia,it is occupied by Russian Federation and it should not be listed as a separate country. Irakli003 (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Lists on Wikipedia often include states with limited recognition. CMD (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Including European Union as an entity

The lead of this article mentions that supranational entities with some degree of sovereignty are not counted. I propose that the European Union be included. Considering it is large body of territory with significant authority of many areas or economic regulation, shares a single currency (in some areas anyway), and allows citizens of member states to live in other member states, it is something that readers would likely want to know. Benboy250 (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose, per the scope and technically then many organizations could be included, but this is about countries and their dependencies, not supranational entities.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

I don't think other organizations would have to be included. The EU is not comparable to other supranational entities. It has a variety of common institutions including a parliament elected directly by citizens rather than government officials, something extremely unusual among supranational entities. Few international organizations directly craft and impose broad economic regulations without consent of all countries in which the regulation applies. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:European_Union/inclusion_in_lists_of_countries#Characteristics_of_the_EU for a list of various other shared institutions and policies). Additionally, the EU has extensive diplomatic relations of its own, having several ambassadors accredited not by its members but by the EU itself, being a member of the WTO and other international organizations, and signing treaties in its own right (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/summary/glossary/union_legal_personality.html). Benboy250 (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If we list the EU are you willing to delist the constituent states? That would be a surer sign of the EU's sovereignty and would preclude the redundancy of listing both (we don't list US states, which are considered sovereign, although obviously in a limited context). Why not list the territory of the UN, under whose auspices wars have been fought, as well as its having the ability to field its own military forces? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, - indeed the EU has as well wide ranges which belong to the respective states and not regulated in a common way - there are as well several American Unions, Transatlantic, Eurasian, Asian, African, but this article is mainly about countries, so no support for changing scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC))

Relative size and location map

Update as per main table

In revision 2021-02-11T15:26:16, @Mxzbz: reverted my addition of the Dymaxion map with comment "List of countries and dependencies by area: map image doesn't correspond to list below".

I intentionally used the CIA World Factbook as reference (and specified it in the caption) instead of the data in the table as it doesn't include Greenland in the ranking, either as part of Denmark or as an autonomous territory.

In my opinion, the table should have Greenland ranked, but I feel that is too big a change without a second opinion. Does anyone have any opinions on this?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 02:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The image should match the article, whatever the decision is for the article. As for the article itself, I don't think any one-off changes should be made. There should be a criteria, and that criteria should by applied consistently. Not sure what it is now, exactly. CMD (talk) 02:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis:, @AuH2ORepublican: and @Mxzbz: OK, I'll make the map match the ranking in the main table. Note that the chart in List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area#Graphical_charts also uses the CIA World Factbook ranking and is different from that of the main table. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. Clean code. CMD (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, CMD. I'll readd it if no one else has any comments. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 23:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on March 03 2021

under the notes section for the USA this sentence exists: Largest English-speaking country and largest in the Western Hemisphere by land area (second-largest by total area, after Canada). I believe that "by land area" is added here by mistake, clearly the sentence it trying to convey largest population, it even admits that Canada is largest in area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.175.20.2 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but what I'm guessing is that, once you take away Canada's inland water area, especially Hudson's Bay, you have an area that is less than that of the US. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

There is land area and there is water area, and together they comprise total area. The United States has more land area than does Canada, but Canada has so much more water area that it ends up having more total area. None of that has anything to do with population. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Lebanon; second smallest country in continental Asia with Palestine being the smallest??

I fixed the numbers in the table so that Palestine is included as a country because Lebanon's note implies it is a country. Any thoughts on the best thing to do here?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I messed up with my revert but someone else will remove the numbering probably. I personally think it should have a number but the current consensus is as it says in the lead UN members + Vatican (ie the other observer state, Palestine is not numbered).Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If we don't include Palestine as a country in a sequence of largest or smallest countries then Lebanon is the smallest, not the second smallest, country in continental Asia and the second smallest would have to be Kuwait. "The 163rd largest country" is an example of being part of such a sequence; so is "the second smallest country in continental Asia". Georgia guy (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Palestine is not an actual country and therefore should not have a country ranking (163 in this case). It should be listed with no ranking in, line with all other territories in the world that do not have a status of a "country". Ranking should be removed. Lonesail (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You have provided no criteria whether Palestine is or is not a state. For a contrast to your statement, please see International recognition of the State of Palestine. Peaceray (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Surfaces misprint?

Are OK CIA surfaces of Congo, Dominica and U.S. Virgin Islands? They are very different from those one of UN and Británica Igor Agarraberes (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me

The notes in the right column are making many of the rows too wide. Can anyone convert them to footnotes?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It was actually syntax errors that were breaking the table.  Fixed

As for the notes, they should either be in a column or in a section below. I don't mind either, just the ambivalence. — Guarapiranga ☎ 22:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that I was talking about the rows, not the columns. There are so many notes that it makes the rows unnecessarily tall. Georgia guy (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a preference either way. A related topic though: I wonder if some of the information in the notes could just be removed. For example, population-related facts like "xth largest (language)-speaking country" seem unnecessary to me in this table. How do others feel about that? --Lasunncty (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the notes definitely need trimming. It seemed whimsical to me when I first saw them on this page. OTOH, they do go above and beyond the usual methodological notes, giving some perspective about the numbers. Too much? Perhaps. If the consensus is for trimming them down to methodological notes only, though, then they don't warrant an extra column, and can be be safely listed in a footnote section. — Guarapiranga ☎ 14:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Denmark

Denmark should be the 12th largest country in the world. Saudi Arabia is the 13th largest, Egypt is the 30th largest, and Tanzania is the 31st largest.

Denmark is also the third largest country in North America, behind Canada and the US, and ahead of Mexico. 2001:8003:9008:1301:91BC:ABA1:CD7F:BBEC (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguity: land area & water area

I assume there is a mistake or al least an uncertainty with Polish figures.

The figure 311, 888 km2 is not land area of Poland in the definition provided by this article, bacause it includes not only the aggregate of all land within international boundaries and coastlines, but also land waters (lakes, rivers, canals etc.) And the figure 791 km2 is not water area of Poland in the definition provided by this article, because it does not include land water bodies (that is lakes, rivers, canals etc. which cover aprox. 8, 300 km2 ). The figure 791 km2 is that part of coastal iternal waters which is included in administrtive units (in general in Poland there are 2,005 km2 of internal waters).

To sum up, in this article for Poland: land area includes all land + some water area (land water bodies) water area includes only coastal internal waters and no land water bodies 176.120.99.41 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

For most countries, internal waters (lakes, reservoirs, rivers, streams, and canals etc.) are negligible. The big problem is the external waters (coastal waters and territorial sea), some countries like the US have officially published their external waters area while some countries like China have never published their official figure. If possible, we should exclude all external waters from the table so all countries are compared on an even ground. 2001:8003:9008:1301:9930:141D:E361:1C8 (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's what the land column is there for. Either way, the article is about countries' area, however WP:RS define countries and area. If they include water, then we must also include it. If some do and some don't, we ought to show both perspectives. If the same source, e.g. CIA, shows both perspectives, so must we. — Guarapiranga ☎ 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

in general in Poland there are 2,005 km2 of internal waters
Actually:

Poland
total: 312,685 sq km
land: 304,255 sq km
water: 8,430 sq km

 Fixed
To be sure:

Total area is the sum of all land and water areas delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines. Land area is the aggregate of all surfaces delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines, excluding inland water bodies (lakes, reservoirs, rivers). Water area is the sum of the surfaces of all inland water bodies, such as lakes, reservoirs, or rivers, as delimited by international boundaries and/or coastlines.

— Guarapiranga ☎ 09:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

Change the PRC and the United States to disputed. Creator785 (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Done in the stable version. CMD (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Rank of America

Why is the United States listed as 3 or 4? Shouldn't we know if it's 3rd or 4th? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Depends on how it's counted. Please see the note in the article. CMD (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Because China has not officially published its territorial waters area (coastal waters + territorial sea). There is an unofficial figure of 370,000 sq km (I think Taiwan is excluded but I don't know whether any disputed islands are included). If we add this "unofficial figure" in, China's total area would be approx. 9,970,000 sq km which would make China almost as big as Canada. Therefore, it is most likely that China is bigger than the United States. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why do we even count the waters? Isnt it the land we want to know about? UB Blacephalon (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

So lakes don't count either? We count water area bc it's countries' area too. — 𝐆𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚 ☎ 03:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

If we only count pure land area (excluding all water areas, both external waters such as coastal waters and territorial sea and internal waters such as lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams etc.), then China is the second-largest, followed by the US, Canada, Brazil, and Australia, but the purpose of this article is to provide a list of countries by area, not by land area only.

Source: https://www.worldometers.info/geography/largest-countries-in-the-world/ 2001:8003:9008:1301:91BC:ABA1:CD7F:BBEC (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think your unofficial figure only includes the coastal waters. China actually has an official figure for its territorial waters. It is a huge figure though, 4.73 million square kilometers (this figure must have included their South China Sea claim, otherwise it can't be this big). If we include this figure, China's total area is 14.33 million square kilometers, that's almost the same as Antarctica and approx. 1.5 times Canada's total area.

Source: http://www.gov.cn/test/2005-05/25/content_591.htm 2001:8003:9008:1301:F952:4941:B52A:E239 (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Kazakhstan, not a transcontinental country.

Kazakhtan's westernmost point is Bokey Orda District, which falls on the same horizontal line as Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Iran which are quite far from Europe.

Quote From The Article: "Largest landlocked country. Second-largest Russian-speaking country, after Russia, and the largest country in Central Asia. Transcontinental country located in Asia and Europe. "

Yoyil (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)yoyil

Asia and Europe are not fixed concepts, but a common definition places the border along the Ural (river). CMD (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Geographically, there are many different versions of the continental boundaries between Asia and Europe, but Kazakhstan is almost universally recognized as a transcontinental country. Politically, the country is considered a Central Asian country. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Congo Brazzaville seems to be 2 million sq km too large

Table shows some very odd figures for this country 51.52.43.171 (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There are two Congos in Central Africa. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is 2 million sq. km larger than the Republic of the Congo. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)