Talk:List of countries by area
The last one in this list is "Bassas da India". The English Wikipedia article about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bassas_da_India says "Bassas da India ... an uninhabited group of Indian Ocean islands off the southern coast of Africa .... They have since 1897 been a possession of France and administered by a high commissioner of the French Republic, resident in Réunion, since 1968." ... This is not a country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 1 July 2004
- Thanks for pointing out the mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 1 July 2004
China and USA numbers[change source]
I made changes to reflect the true value of US vs China. I suggest you research the history of CIA factbook of last 22 years to learn the changes to US area. Namely, US added 1. coastal waters and 2. territorial waters to its own figures without doing so for China. The new numbers reflect coastal waters for BOTH countries and eliminated territorial water for US as it was not included for China in the first place. No politics here please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 2 April 2014
Serbia and Montenegro[change source]
Serbia and Montenegro is listed, that was one country before now this should be deleted as on the list we already have Montenegro and Serbia listed on two places.
Kosovo is self declared a country not recognized by many other countries, therefore it should not be on this list. Only UN members should be on the list or it should be stated that it is not recognized country by UN. Or it should be stated same (for example) as Taiwan... like this its obvious mistake. I understand that some would like it like this but facts are facts, like it or not. [] [] []
Proposed split[change source]
I am proposing that the article be split. The list of countries by area would remain, the other lists would get their own articles. It is unclear why they are listed together anyway as someone looking for, say, the relative sizes of the continents is unlikely to look at this particular list. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 10:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree it makes little sense having the three. I don't know if there is enough to say about the list of continents to deserve an article. Maybe merge with the continent page? If I were you, I'd simply be bold. The three lists don't correspond to the title of the page. --Yottie =talk= 10:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Yottie: Yeah, the continents could just be added as a table in the continent article. I just checked EnWiki and found the same treatment there. That said, I need to find a source first -- the list is entirely unsourced and I am not comfortable introducing the list as is without verifying the material. Meanwhile, I'd like to see if there are any other comments. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 11:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I would suggest junking the List of major geographic bodies, all ordered according to area, and replacing it with the En wiki version: 
The continents table is small and useful. It could just be repeated on the continents page. I think the areas of continents comes to mind when one is looking at areas of countries.
One thing you must do is define countries as "members of the United Nations" or "sovereign nations" or whatever. There must be a line drawn, or every crackpot liberation movement will try to get listed. There are, of course, dependent territories. They could be left out; or they could have a little table of their own. Whatever we do, there has to be a clear demarcation, so when the little gremlins stick something in, we can say Aha! that doesn't fit the criterion! Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why call it by a name different from that used by our article on the country?
- Why split it out, when we don't do similarly for other countries that incorporate various land masses (except the Netherlands, for some reason)?
- The third paragraph in our Denmark intro explains your first question. And we list the parts of the Kingdom of Denmark because otherwise readers would not understand why it ranks so high in the table. I would think we're not going to change this tiny section until other regular editors have commented on the suggestion above (where it is proposed we go over wholesale to the method used on English wiki). Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)