Talk:List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on September 24, 2012.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 13, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
August 13, 2008	Featured list candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured list

International relations: Law Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Low-importance).

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pre-FLC comments

Avoid bold links in the lead sentence.
- Done There are some featured lists that have this, and I thought correcting it makes it a bit redundant, but ok. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would reduce the size of the lead image a little, maybe 300-400 px?
- Done Updated map to my own up-to-date svg, reduced thumb size to 400px, though I still think it could be bigger. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five paras in the lead is a little too much, maybe make it four?
- Done edited and compressed a bit; now 4 --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
put (CTBT) after the first expanded version so when you use the abbreviation we all know what you're on about.
- Done --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5->five (and all numbers below 10)
- Done --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The instrument of ratification is deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations." - I don't have a clue what this "instrument" is?!
- I think "Instrument of Ratification" is a pretty common term to describe the formal paper that includes the necessary signatures for a government to express its ratification of a treaty. Unfortunately there's not really a wiki article to link to to explain that.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal but I'd put the summary at the end.
- Not Done I Guess it's personal as well, but I'd prefer it before the list, because the list is so long. If consensus dictates otherwise I'd be happy to change it.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"ime.[6]Nine" - space needed after the ref.
- Done --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listing is a dull heading - why not List of signatories?
- Done Changed to listing of states, because not all are signatories.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid blank cells - an en or em dash is usually put in with a reference saying why there's nothing in there. Or, write something before the table that says "If no signatory date is present... If not ratification date is available..." - it's needed because I'd be confused if this lists the "signatories" and somewhere like Cuba hasn't got a signatory date, what are they doing in the list?
- Done Good idea. Added explanation at top as opposed to adding a bunch of dashes (but if I still need to add the dashes, let me know). I preferred to keep a list of all countries regardless of their status in one big sortable list, but I don't know for sure what's best.--Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 4 and 5 need accessdates.
- Done --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments! --Allstar86 (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional states, ... - citation needed

I added the following note: "Additional states, currently not ratified the treaty, but having nuclear reactors operational or partially completed in the past are: Cuba, Iraq, Syria, Taiwan (not even annex 1) and Thailand." that was tagged with "citation needed". The note itself links to List_of_nuclear_reactors, where these countries are listed and the article itself lists signatories, ratifications, annex 1 and 2 states... Maybe some clarification is needed. Alinor (talk) 08:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Parties"

This article should be named "List of ratifiers . . .." The CTBT is not yet in force. A state can only be a party to a treaty that is in force. NPguy (talk) 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the present wording is not ideal; an alterantive: list of states signatories of CTBT; covering all categories here... L.tak (talk) 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's even better. NPguy (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this question again, I found this UN reference, which distinguishes between "Parties" to a treaty that has entered into force and "Contracting States" that have ratified and are prepared to be bound by a treaty that has not yet entered into force. I suggest changing the title to "Contracting States of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty." An alternative would be to keep the current title and explain in the lead that they aren't really parties since the treaty hasn't entered into force. Preferences? NPguy (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that those are pretty synonymous to me, but indeed the reference makes the distinction; and it does carry some weight, as it's from the depositary of the treaty... L.tak (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-upping this discussion, shouldn't we change the name? The two options seem to be "List of contracting parties ..." and "List of signatories ...". The former is a little awkward but is accurate and would not require any change to the article itself. The latter seems more natural but would probably require merging the two lists of ratifiers and signatories and adding a column for ratification status. Incidentally, "contracting party" comes from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. NPguy (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that they are not formally parties until the treaty enters into force, the UN depositary does list them as such on their status page: "Parties : 166". TDL (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504185050/http://www.ctbto.org/member-states/country-profiles/ to http://www.ctbto.org/member-states/country-profiles/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123172029/http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/nucweps%20test%20ban.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/nucweps%20test%20ban.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Parties" to the CTBT

Since the treaty has not entered into force, none of the states that have signed and ratified are "Parties" to the CTBT. I'd suggest changing the title to "List of CTBT Signatories" or "List of CTBT Ratifiers" of some such. NPguy (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]