Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/06/Category:Wales

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Category:Wales

[edit]

There is a long-brewing issue with the category scope of this territorial entity. Is this category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, or is it for the historical independent country of Wales? This needs to be discussed, as it has led to continual slow-burn conflict between user and several others, with it continually getting added to and removed from the same categories over the years. This creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies. Josh (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywelyn2000, Synthwave.94, Hmains, Gikü, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, and Place Clichy: (pinging some recent editors on this topic)
For the most part Wales as a single name appears to be used for several potential concepts or definition (list not exhaustive):
  1. Wales, the constituent country of the United Kingdom. This is the current political-administrative-geographic entity which is a sub-division of the United Kingdom. It is not a sovereign state and is internationally universally recognized as wholly constituent within the United Kingdom. Thus, this entity is not a "country" per Commons' Countries, but instead a subdivision.
  2. Wales, the former country. The no longer extant sovereign entity that went by the name "Wales". Near as I can tell, there were a couple such entities that would fit this bill. One would be the Kingdom of Wales, though I don't know if that exact title was ever used as such (just my lack of knowledge here). I know there were a few Kings of Wales, and calling such kingdoms "countries" is a bit of a fudge, but I think we pretty much are okay with that given how we treat a lot of other old kingdoms on Commons. There was also a brief period (15th century?) where they had an independent state and parliament before getting taken over by England (not sure what name it went by). That short-lived state would most certainly be considered a country, and if we had categories for them (and we should if we have media from those periods), they should be correctly found under Countries.
  3. Wales, the nation. The community of people of Wales linked by certain elements, such as language, history, culture, ethnicity and/or society. This is more amorphous and distinctly different from a country. However, on Commons we tend to lump national entities into the category of whatever the closest analogous current political entity is. For nations such as Ireland or China, this can be contentious as their nations are not limited to a single such entity. Personally, I think this is not the best practice, but it is what we do and I'm not really ready with a proposal to overhaul that.
  4. Wales, the current country. The concept of Wales as a current independent sovereign state. Obviously this is nascent at the moment, and its exact form differs based on who is considering it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at some level. This is distinct from the constituent country of the UK, though most such concepts would naturally assume an independent Wales to assume the borders, people, land, bodies, etc. from the current constituent country.
  5. Wales, the sporting country. The various participation in and recognition by international sports activity as a country in international competition. Sports bodies are not bound to the political boundaries and can define what entities are or are not permitted to compete as 'countries'. Their definition of 'country' does not have to match what sovereign states recognize as countries. While this is appropriate to recognize for categories to do with international sport, it should not extend beyond that scope. I believe the main category for this would be Category:National sports teams of Wales.
  6. Wales, the geographic region. Contents specific to the geographic area generally considered to be Wales, independent of political status and boundaries.
  7. Wales, the flame-thrower... okay maybe not.
Each of the above (well 1 to 5 anyway), are each distinct concepts, and I think a lot of the problem here is that we have piled all of them into 1 category (Wales) and now folks who want to categorize it as they would any other subdivision are at odds with those who want to categorize it as they would any other current or former country.
This is why the Simplicity Principle exists! To many concepts in one category leads to problems!
We should have a category for Wales, the subdivision, and we should have a category for Wales, the country. Each should be categorized appropriately within the established norms for its type of entity. But what to call them? Typically, we would give the 'simple' name to the current country and 'long' name to the former entity (such as Germany for the current country, German Empire for the old one). One option would be to simply create countries for the former country entities, so we would have:
  1. Category:Wales - current constituent country of the United Kingdom
  2. Category:Wales (state) - former country of Wales that existed in the 15th/16th centuries (name can change with research on exactly how this state was styled)
  3. Category:Kingdom of Wales - realms of the various kings of Wales that existed from 798-1170
  4. Category:Wales (nation) - topics and contents pertinent to Welsh cultural identity independent of specific political entities
  5. Category:National sports teams of Wales - parent category for Wales as a country in international sport
If it is deemed too politically loaded to make the constituent country the default Category:Wales, we could potentially make Category:Wales a dab adding to the above list:
  1. Category:Wales - dab category for the various Welsh categories
  2. Category:Wales (constituent country) - current constituent country of the United Kingdom (alternatively Category:Wales (United Kingdom) or such)
With the above categorization, the category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom and the category for the former country can each be categorized stably and peacefully in their respective category trees without the silly back and forth on whether Wales is a country or not a country, if it is an overcat or not, etc. Josh (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then would we need to do the same for England and Scotland? -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CC @Jimbo Wales:
Joshbaumgartner - Dividing Wales like this only answers part of the question. The crux however is the right to use two parent categories for articles on Wales:
1. Wales in its own right, on an European / international level (Your points # 2 - 5).
2. Wales as a constituent country of the United Kingdom
eg adding Category:Mathematicians by country| as well as Category:Mathematicians in the UK. Category:Footballers by country as well as Category:Footballers in Wales.
COM:OVERCAT actually lists 'countries' as exceptions to the rule:
Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. For example, Category:India is in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia.
At the end of the day, Wales is one place, one country with many aspects, just as every other nation. See: Category talk:Wales for discussions on this matter, over many years: not one person disagreed with having both partent categories.
Let's also recognise that the country's situation is rather unique in the fact that yes it's a country, but is also part of the UK. One wiki-size doesn't fit all. Adding both parental cats reflect the real situation, the reliable sources.
Your opening statement Is this category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, or is it for the historical independent country of Wales? ignores modern Wales. The question shgould have been: Is this category for the constituent country of the United Kingdom, or is it for the historical and modern independent country of Wales, which participates at an European and international level? Wales is an independent football nation, playing on an international level. The two cats I suggest are geographical rather than historical, thus simplifies the whole unique problem. Yes, Wales is sometimes a part of the UK AND yes, Wales is sometimes a country on an international level. It's not 'either or', but rather yes, we're both. This is fully in line with our policies.
Lastly, Joshbaumgartner says, "This (creating two cats) creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies. Yet, is perfectly stable for Category:India to be in Category:Countries of South Asia as well as Category:Countries of Asia. Nothing unstable or inconsistent in that. And if it violates Commons category policies, then change it! Wiki projects should reflect the sources.
So, allowing two parent categories on matters about Wales is the simple answer. NOT allowing Wales to add Wales means that Wales is not a country, and that's an argument I haven't come accross for years! One parent category reduces it to a sub-region of the UK, and that goes against all the reliable sources, is only half true and reduces the positive, caring, diverse nature and ethos of our Wikiprojects to an unfinished unionist political statement.
On Category:Wales your removal here of the parent category: Category:Countries of Europe should have been discussed on the Talk page before removing it, as is usual. You're disputing either that Wales is a country or 2 that Wales is in Europe. Which is it? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a compromise. Let's look at everything on Commons in topic form. Anything which is relevant to Wales as a constituent country of the UK get's just that one parent category (eg Category:British monarchy in Wales, Category:Union Jacks in Wales, Category:Images of General Election polling booths in Wales). The rest gets both cats (eg Category:Ferral horses in Wales gets a parent category Category:Ferral horses by country|Wales AND Category:Ferral horses in the UK; same with Category:Mathematicians in Wales, having nothing at all to do with Wales being annexed to the UK, would have both. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Llywelyn2000 has misquoted me ("This (creating two cats) creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies.) What I actually said was "This creates an unstable and inconsistent situation, violating several Commons category policies." By "this", I was not referring to creation of two categories as creating that situation but in fact was referring to the current situation in which we have everything mashed into one category, the opposite of what they added to my quote.
 Comment Another point of record regarding Llywelyn's comment about including Wales under Countries of Europe. They state: "over many years: not one person disagreed with having both partent categories." This is patently false. Since Llywelyn added that category for the first time in 2018, it has been removed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 times by at least 8 different users. Clearly at least 8 people disagreed with Llywelyn's categorization.
@Auntof6: "Then would we need to do the same for England and Scotland?" - I believe this is already how England is structured:
  1. Category:England, the constituent country of the United Kingdom, and
  2. Category:Kingdom of England, the former country
Likewise Scotland has:
  1. Category:Scotland, the constituent country of the United Kingdom, and
  2. Category:Kingdom of Scotland, the former country
So this is at the heart of what I suggest we do for Wales by adding categories for its former country forms. Josh (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your 1st  Comment. Your opening statement on 'long-brewing issue' was followed by two sentences 'This needs to be..' and then 'This creates..'. Both referred to the 'long-brewing issue', ie the addition by myself, and many others, of Wales being a country within Europe / the world. The purpose of this discussion, is that you want Wales to be treated only as a part of the UK. Your suggestion is that only the legal definition of Wales should be considered; legal as defined by England! I have no calms with using 'Kingdom of Scotland' or 'Kingdom of Wales'; no probs. But what is left (Wales within the UK, only) is insufficient, incorrect, fake news, nothing less than a make believe unit. To ignore the international standing shows a bias.
Your 2nd  Comment is very wrong. You have misread. I said At the end of the day, Wales is one place, one country with many aspects, just as every other nation. See: Category talk:Wales for discussions on this matter, over many years: not one person disagreed with having both parent categories. ' I referred to not having discussion on the Wales:Talk page not in the article. You then list not discussions but 8 reverts! By the way, I was wrong, two users did discuss this issue, and a further two users were in favour of adding the parent category: Countries of Europe.
 Comment. You are yet to answer my question. I'll repeat: You're disputing either that Wales is a country or 2 that Wales is in Europe. Which is it?
 Comment I've quoted the relevant part of Commons category policies which allows more than one category. I'll do it again: Countries may be categorized as part of multiple overlapping categories. Can you confirm that my addition of 'Countries of Europe' was well within Commons category policies.
 Comment Categories for Wales' former country forms isn't a long brewing issue. The problem is that you don't accept that there is a modern Wales, playing on an international stage, creating its own laws, raising its own taxes, having its own 'national' institutions - all of which have NOTHING to do with 'being part of the UK'. Once you face this question, we can start discussing my compromise. Two cats: one for Wales as part of the UK, and one for Wales as a country.
Compromise 2. Start a new category: Category:Sovereign states (it's now a RD) - include all sovereign states; do NOT include Wales or Scotland in such a category. But please, don't exclude countries such as Wales and Scotland under Category: Countries, for that is what we are. Countries. Wikimedia projects should reflect the world, not try and change the world. Take politics out of this.
A long, long time ago, English Wikipedia, came to a consensus that, yes, Wales is a country. It's high time Commons also made that statement. Or is the truth too political? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000: Your comment is so all over the place and laced with political opinions, I can't really tell what you are getting at. Are you supporting one of my proposals, opposing it, or what? If you are opposing one of my proposals, which one? You say you have no problem with Kingdom of Scotland, etc., so that sounds like you support the first option I posted. Of course only you can say what you really are thinking so maybe it is best to get down to basics before we get lost. You certainly seem to think I am your enemy and just want to squash Wales and her liberty-loving people into the ground with my Union Jack boot, but treat with me a moment and let me ask a couple of basic things to start with:
Q1: In your opinion, what is Wales?
Q2: Do you think that there should be a Commons category structured to accommodate the entirety of your answer to Q1, or should there be multiple categories covering different aspects of that definition, or both maybe?
Josh (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Josh, for pinging me to this issue. I should agree with Llywelyn2000's Compromise 2 as accurate. As far as I have seen, the use of "country" for sovereign state is highly problematic, peoples, nations and non-sovereign countries exist before 19th or 20th century nation states or sovereign states, so it is not an option IMO to erase their existence from that category. I have seen similar issues related to citizenship and nationality (Wikidata mainly), with citizenship ("France" or whatever it is) used to categorize 16-17th century people (sic), hence default, present-day official language ("French" or whatever it is). Wales is no doubt a country, but not a sovereign state. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshbaumgartner my answers are as over the place' as the questions you raise are 'all over the place'. You ask, 'In your opinion, what is Wales?' and this isn't the place for that academic discussion. It would take us further 'all over the place'. There are many reasonable questions I've asked which you still haven't answered; please do so. Your Q2 gives a limited choice of two suggestions, as if one would ask: "What's a cow? Is it an animal with two horns and a "Mooo!", or is it an animal with four legs and a fart?" I've answered your question, several times, and I'm quite sure you've understood fully. Wales is much more than your limited choice of either historic Wales, at one period of time, and/or a Wales annexed to England, at one period of time. Iñaki LL has fully understood. I have offered a way around your 'long-brewing issue', and to be honest, I'm shocked that we haven't a category of sovereign states as well as countries as both are very different! I will now go ahead and do that.

This thread was a result of my leaving a message on your Talk page, two days earlier, in which I asked, "On the [[:Category:Industry in Wales]] I removed your template 'topic in country' as it doesn't recognise Wales as a country (which it undisputedly is)." That was a courteous thing to do; very unbiased, neutral statement, and totally correct. To which you replied that it had passion and Welsh nationalist fervor (sic). This shows your bias, prejudging an editor for stating that Wales is a country. Your response now is, You certainly seem to think I am your enemy.... That is over the top. I have reiterated and confirmed only what the sources say about Wales, and that is totally apolitical.

Lastly, I've just come accross the defenition of a Country on Commons, under Category:Countries: A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state.. Removing both Europe and World parent categories from topics to do with Wales, therefore should be disallowed. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iñaki LL: Thank you for a pretty clear comment. I think you do have a couple of good points. Let me first say that I completely agree that 'retroactive' citizenship assignment is a problem, if that is what you are finding. It is not correct, in my opinion, that just because a painter was born and lived in the Kingdom of Awesome, even though that kingdom had no formal citizenship concept, for us to sort them as an Awesome citizen in our citizenship categories which are very much defined by formal, official citizenship laws. Same with language. However, that problem deserves its own discussion to fix, so I won't digress too far here.
I do agree that the name of Category:Countries can lead to confusion. Not that the word 'countries' is difficult to understand, but it can cover a lot of different things. One of the struggles I see repeated with categories across Commons is when we have a category with a name 'X' that covers 'A', 'B', and 'C', but the category itself is exclusive to 'A'. Users attempt to add 'B' or 'C' to it (understandable given the name), and then are frustrated when those attempts are reverted or they are told that 'B' or 'C' does not belong in Category:'X'. Afterall, 'B' and 'C' are very obviously 'X' and anyone who speaks basic English should know that so how can Category:'X' be limited to only 'A'?
This seems to be the case with Category:Countries. 'Sovereign states' is a subset of 'things that can be considered countries', yet Category:Countries is structured around only 'sovereign states' and this is clearly creating friction when something that may not be a 'sovereign state' but is a 'country' is disallowed from inclusion in Category:Countries. It seems an affront, even if not intended as such.
The proposal to move all 'sovereign state' content down into a subcat (Category:Sovereign states) while broadening the inclusion criteria for Category:Countries is a reasonable one. It is exactly the solution that I have implemented on several categories where this crops up: create subcategories 'A', 'B', and 'C' of Category:'X' and make 'X' a main cat which includes everything, with contents sorted into the subs. When a topic is relatively compact, this is completely workable and relatively simple to implement (eg an aircraft and its variants). However, when approaching larger topics where a significant structural change like that can be very disruptive, we need to be a bit more reserved about sweeping changes such as this.
There is another way to do essentially the same thing, but with far less disruption: Leave the existing category in place and create a new parent category with broader scope. I have also used this solution on several categories, typically where the current category is well established, but too limited. Creating a new parent category which is more inclusive solves the problem without the significant disruption that goes with changing a long-established category.
Category:Countries is one of the biggest main topics on Commons, with thousands (possibly tens of thousands) of derived categories based on it's scope and name. Moving sovereign states to a sub of countries is simple, but having to repeat that process on tens of thousands of sub-categories is a significant undertaking. If needed, than so be it, but we should make sure it is really necessary before launching that.
I think we also need to determine what the scope of the new main cat 'countries, sovereign or not' is. It is all well and good to say 'countries' includes more than just 'sovereign states', but what are the new boundaries on this? Once we have that delineation, then it will be more clear how to modify the current structure to accomodate that larger set.
 Comment on Wales specifically: I agree that it is silly to say "Wales is not a country", as it clearly is a country in many different ways, as I've listed in my original post. I think it is important to be clear however, that not including Category:Wales in Category:Countries is NOT a statement to that effect. Categorization is merely a question of whether and how the scope of the Category:Wales fits within the scope of the Category:Countries. This is a debatable matter of course (hence this discussion), but it is in no way a statement about Wales itself or its status in the world.
 Comment on category names: Names are descriptive, not prescriptive. That is, a category's name should be determined by its content, not the other way around. This is why it is first important to determine the structure and scope of a category, and the name will follow. What we shouldn't do is to say that since a category is named 'X', that means it must contain anything the word 'X' can cover. Josh (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Josh for your rational take on this. Both of us agree:
  • 'Sovereign states' is a subset of 'things that can be considered countries'.
  • The proposal to move all 'sovereign state' content down into a subcat (Category:Sovereign states) while broadening the inclusion criteria for Category:Countries is a reasonable one.
Now then, 'what are the new boundaries'? What is / are the criteria for the group? Let's stick to sources, and let's take them one by one, case by case. We can start with Wales and Scotland, and accept that, yes, these are countries, due to the strength of the reliable sources which back that definition. All the sources are also in ageement that Northern Ireland isn't a country. If other people from other places would like to include their piece of land under Category:Countries, then they would need to make their case. In the meantime, let's set out the best structure, rather than the easiest. AWB can help with this, as can your template 'topic in country'.
What do you suggest is the next step? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Llywelyn2000: You are correct that we agree on those points. It seems we also agree that doing things right should not be obstructed just because it isn't the easiest thing. I hope we can also agree on a couple of additional things:
  • There can be more than one reasonable approach to solve a problem.
  • Renaming Category:Countries will involve more than just a lot of work; it will be a massive undertaking like none we've seen before on Commons.
There are few categories better established or more widely used than Category:Countries and its tree. Just the number of index categories listed at Category:Categories by country is almost 1800, and many index cats never get properly sorted in this meta category. Changing names and moving content aren't even the biggest impacts. Bots and bulk tools can help with that. Beyond that, the number of impacts on other sister and third party projects is immense. And something that people don't often think of, the thousands upon thousands of Commons users over the years who know and understand what Category:Countries is, what it covers, and how to use it, have to suddenly come around to it being changed to something different. This is not a trivial matter. Not insurmountable either, just a really high bar.
As for inclusion criteria, it does seem like you are saying the inclusion criteria would be that Scotland and Wales are in, Northern Ireland out, and everything else we can figure out later. I don't think this makes for a useful or objective criteria. Saying to rely on source material is a bit missing the mark, as it sounds good, but in practice, I haven't seen a single source out there that says: "Wikimedia Commons Category:Wales must be categorized under Wikimedia Commons Category:Countries". That comment may sound a bit specious, but there is a serious point: when an author writes a book or paper or some other source, I don't think they usually have Commons categorization structures in mind. Thus it would be a horrendous mistake to presume that their context and definition of "Wales" and "countries" however they used them in their work is necessarily any relation to the context and definition of Category:Wales or Category:Countries on Commons. Sources can of course inform our discussion about categorization, but they cannot dictate how things are categorized, unless they really are explicitly a source writing about Commons categories specifically. However, I don't want to dismiss the idea, so could you perhaps provide a citation that you would consider valid in supporting the idea that Category:Wales should be categorized under Category:Countries (either current or proposed versions). Josh (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Josh's points are not minor, "sovereign state" is the most accurate, but as Josh pointed out it may take too much of an effort. In order to simplify: as the first entry in Collins goes, and I am persuaded it reflects English-language practice, "Country" is "one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land". At this point, Commons is divided according to English-language categories and I do not think there is much we can do about that at this point, possibly at another stage of discussion. Collins' definition is a wide one, not at odds with "Wales", straight: I see Wales up for inclusion. The problem would lie with such political constructions as "Northern Ireland", which may be included in "Country" as the lesser of two evils, or not considered at all. Catalonia may be included if we consider it as a historical nationality, acknowledged also in the Spanish Constitution, and political unit, but it may come across as controversial.
There are other related national entities. The "Basque Country" is explicitly a country, but not a political unit as defined in English, except if we take it as the western Spanish unit Basque Autonomous Community ("Basque Country"), as named in Spanish and sometimes also in English these last decades. In Basque language, only Euskal Herria or Basque Country exists, while the name for the western political unit has been constructed later (Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoa, the autonomous community). Cases like the Basque Country (Kurdistan, Sápmi...) have come to be categorized under the umbrella of (cross-border) cultural regions or Disputed regions/territories, since they have no central political authority, and at this point I do not see other option out for categorization.
To sum up: broad sense for "Country" and inclusion of Wales (and Scotland), with consideration of a future split between "Country" and "Sovereign state" with easier technical conditions to accomplish the task. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 09:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we should stick to the commonly-understood definition of country as sovereign state, for the sake of clarity and consistency. Note that this was the long-standing definition mentioned in Category:Countries until this change. This definition also extended to some dependent territories, significantly separated from their country's mainland, although they could be placed in a separate dependent territories category. This in no way diminishing towards Wales as a nation. However, extending the notion of country in categories would unfortunately be without end. There's little reason to place Wales among countries and not other sub-national entities such as the Basque Country, German and Austrian Länder (Land means country in German), the Black Country, the West Country, the Wine Country, the Texas Hill Country, the Pennsylvania Dutch Country etc. I therefore suggest to revert to the previous definition of Category:Countries and explicitly refer to sovereign states only. To be more explicit: the debate should not be about in which category to place Wales, it should be about what to place in Category:Countries. And the answer is obvious: UK categories should be at that level. Place Clichy 14:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies with the ideological appropriation by sovereign states of the whole range of linguistic options to call nations other than sovereign states: nation, country. Take for instance the present-day "Category:Flags of France", where "Flags of France" stands for virtually whatever flag lies within that sovereign state, instead of "Flags in France". This is not innocent, of course. This trend leaves no linguistic leeway to categorize nations other than sovereign states.
Despite their use of "country" in the instances brought up by Place, generated for commercial, touristy or generic (umbrella) geographic purposes (Wine Country, etc.), they clearly belong to another category, not connected to national realities. Iñaki LL (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Place Clichy I agree with you that Category:Countries should be defined as sovereign states only. However, it is not a case of reverting to this, as this is the current scope of the category and unless this discussion arrives at a consensus to change that status quo, that will remain the correct scope for Category:Countries. Josh (talk) 17:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Iñaki LL, and Place Clichy: I have read the above discussion carefully and I propose to define the Countries category to cover the following political entities:

I hope my proposed definition of "country" will resolve any disputes regarding its definition. For nations that are not related to a particular political entity (like Bengali, Chinese, Irish and Tamil peoples), feel free to expand the Nations category. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Non-self-governing territories, as they are often included in a map of countries (like Western Sahara). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read your list carefully. It does not reflect the fact as stated above that a sovereign state (and the other entities in your list) is a sub-category of countries. As Joshbaumgartner stated above: Sovereign states' is a subset of 'things that can be considered countries. Secondly, your inclusion of the UN's definition of Non-self-governing territories is too limited. Non-self-governing countries should also be included. All the reliable sources, for the last 900 years state that Wales is a country. This is the most important criteria on all Wikimedia Projects - reliable sources. Your accepted list includes the Malvinas, accepted as a country (!) and Wales is not! This is 100% incorrect, false, irrational. If you accept the politically motivated UN list, then you must also accept that Non-self-governing territories not on the UN list are also acceptable if the reliable sources say so. I move that both are included in the 'Countries' category UN and non-UN Non-self-governing territories / countries. PLEASE, let's stick to facts and reliable sources, and not the remnants of colonial empires. 103.125.235.24 08:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, your inclusion of the UN's definition of Non-self-governing territories is too limited. Non-self-governing countries should also be included. The Dependent territories are "non-self-governing" in its literal sense. All the reliable sources, for the last 900 years state that Wales is a country. My proposed definition of countries in Commons also includes Wales, as it participates in certain international events as a separate country. I'm clarifying my definition to explicitly say that all constituent countries are included in my proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the definition of a country? A sovereign state is a country but a country is not necessarily a sovereign state. In fact, the colonizing sovereign state will say the colonized place is not a country. Puerto Rico is a country, AND a territory of the US. Easy enough? No, because once you say "it's a territory of the US" everyone automatically assumes it is located in the US, which it is not. The US Virgin Islands, Guam, etc.- the US territories are not in the US and categories all over commons say they are in the US. They should be categorized as "countries", and "territories" of the US. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current scope of Category:Countries is sovereign states, regardless of current status or level of recognition. This is not an attempt to "define" the word "countries", but instead simply the use of the word "countries" to describe this category. I'm not sure what you mean by Puerto Rico not being in the US, because of course it is, as are Guam, VI, etc. They are not in the 'states of the US', but neither is DC. They are not in the 'contiguous US', but neither are Alaska or Hawaii. There are legal differences under US law between them and the states, but that kind of accentuates the fact that they are indeed in the United States. Josh (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort to find a resolution here. The English word "countries" has multiple definitions, many quite commonly used, and we should not be attempting to either define the word, nor select among its meanings to determine which of those definitions is most valid. The Commons Category:Countries has adopted this word as its name as a way to describe its contents, and so the real question is whether this should be retained or if a different name should be adopted. I don't think there is any debate that a category with a scope encompassing the sovereign/independent countries/states/territories of the world is valid category scope, just a question as to the name, and if the name is not retained, if the word "countries" should be adopted by another category with a different scope.
While you have done a laudable job collecting a list of entities which may by one definition or another be called "countries", some in reality belong nested within others. Empires are Sovereign states. Non-self-governing territories, Colonies, and Constituent countries of the United Kingdom are all Dependent territories. That would in reality leave only two sub-categories of Countries from your list: Sovereign states and Dependent territories. This would lend much more to your new Category:Countries being actually made as a dab, not a fully-fleshed category page. I also wonder if Territories isn't a better descriptor in this case. Josh (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Countries category should never be converted into a dab page, given the wide use of the term throughout Commons. Instead, Countries should be retained as a parent of Sovereign states, Dependent territories and Constituent countries (constituent countries are administrative divisions, not dependent territories). In my definition, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a country, and its constituents (Netherlands and Dutch Caribbean territories) are also countries. In this case, the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a sovereign state, Netherlands and three semi-sovereign Dutch Caribbean territories (Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, Dutch Caribbean) are Constituent countries, and other Dutch Caribbean territories are Dependent territories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 For what it is worth, I agree with you that countries as a dab would not be good. I'm certainly not suggesting that, and that is part of why I do not support converting Category:Countries to cover the range you suggest. Sovereign states, dependent territories, and constituent countries are three different and distinct types of territories. Creating a category to specifically group them together arbitrarily while not including other territories such as federal subjects, autonomous republics, free and sovereign states, or other such conventions which exist around the world is non-sensical and puts Commons categorizers in the position of deciding which entities do or don't get put under 'countries' on the basis of...well I'm not really sure, based on the above conversation. You want to put the Netherlands under Countries because "country" is in its title, but then do you think the states of Mexico should be listed under Sovereign states? Afterall, their actual title is "Free and Sovereign State of X".
Instead, the current status quo of Countries being sovereign states is clear and objective, and ensures that constituent entities are listed under their sovereign state instead of along-side, avoiding several technical categorization problems that, while not intended by your proposal, are indeed consequences that your proposal will cause. Josh (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of countries as a synonym of "sovereign states" is a good idea, and simplifies many technical categorisation issues. The question of whether Wales is a country is already solved with the creation of a dedicated Constituent countries, which include administrative divisions named "countries". The recreated Sovereign states would be redirected back to Countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I have encountered a problem concerning Denmark and the Netherlands when I strictly define a country as a sovereign state. Mainland Denmark and mainland Netherlands are constituent countries of respective kingdoms and they are widely categorised under "by country" categories. So I think a country could be a sovereign state or a constituent country, while dependent territories are not countries. This also fixes the problem with the Countries of the Antarctic category, which is CFDed by Auntof6, assuming the term "country" implying a sovereign state. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner: Instead of expanding the scope of Countries to include non-sovereign entities, I think the scope of Categories by country should be expanded to include sovereign states, dependent territories, subdivisions named "countries" and regions participate in international events as "countries". Compare with the scope of Categories by city, which basically include all populated places regardless of status. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the scope of Countries would be reverted to sovereign states only. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 Perhaps I am confused by this suggestion, but why would we use the same word to indicate one scope when used as a topic name and another when used as a sort criteria name in category names? Normally, I would expect that in "Category:X by Y", the scopes of the main categories "Category:X" and "Category:Y" would be consistent with X and Y's use in the X by Y category. To do otherwise would seem ripe for confusion and a breeding ground for a tug-of-war between the two concepts. It seems inconsistent with the Universality Principle as well, so it seems problematic on the surface to me. Also, I wouldn't suggest 'city' as an example concept. At least we have a concise objective scope for countries currently, but cities is, as you allude to, so broad as to be practically undefined. 'Countries' should be kept that way, with the current, objective scope, through all Commons category structures, consistent with the UP. It certainly should not be drifted towards the far more nebulous 'cities'. Josh (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, you are right. I'm also concerned with the CFD on Ireland, where we have problems with "in Ireland" categories. Since the island of Ireland is not a sovereign state as a whole (it is divided into the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom), we cannot put the "in Ireland" categories into Categories by country. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, there are a lot of Republic of Ireland categories that are merely named Ireland still, and they require individually fixing to check if they are really specific to Republic of Ireland or general to the region/island. Ireland categories definitely do not belong in countries, that would be where Republic of Ireland belongs, instead Ireland can be in a by region index. Placing Ireland under countries would encourage users to continue to misuse the term for Republic of Ireland matters. I was hoping that Ireland CfD was ready for resolution, and hopefully it is, but you can see comments specific to Ireland there. Josh (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should close the discussion with a consensus to redefine the term "country" as a sovereign state and a constituent country. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. That would put two different kinds of things into the same category. -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I have struck "constituent countries" for now. Let an uninvolved and experienced user close this discussion. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree. I don't think it's true that only sovereign states are countries. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a good idea to consider only sovereign states as countries in most cases per COM:CAT's simplicity principle. Dependent territories and constituent countries (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland etc.) can be put under "by country" categories like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar]], where Foo is a topic and Bar is a non-sovereign territory often grouped with countries. The Sovereign states category may be retained for sovereign states like the Kingdom of the Netherlands (covering Netherlands+Dutch Caribbean) and the Kingdom of Denmark (covering Denmark+Faroe Islands+Greenland), whose mainlands are considered countries (Netherlands and Denmark respectively). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that The Economist wrote in 2010 that "any attempt to find a clear definition of a country soon runs into a thicket of exceptions and anomalies." However, I have (somehow) managed to find a somewhat clear definition of a country. Countries are generally sovereign states with only one exception:

The discussion was supposed to be whether the Constituent countries of the United Kingdom should be considered as separate countries or not. As per the arguments of Joshbaumgartner, the constituents of the UK may not be considered as separate countries, although they may be considered as separate sporting countries. On the other hand, numerous reliable sources have designated them as "countries" (see Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom/refs) and the Wikipedia has a consensus in Talk:Wales to designate them as countries. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413, @The Eloquent Peasant, there is no single definition of the word country. There are a million different ways to define it, or combinations of what is or is not within such definitions. It is not the purpose of Commons or our categorization scheme to try and decide one which one is 'right'. All of those definitions are valid and thus both statements, "Wales is a country" and "Wales is not a country", are both perfectly valid, depending on which definition one uses. Commons cannot and should not decide or declare one or the other correct. That is why categorization is not a statement or definition, it is merely a way to gather things into manageable groups within a hierarchical scheme to assist users in finding content. The only question before us really is whether or not Category:Countries should encompass everything that is considered a country under any definition, or if it should be scope-limited to only a particular definition for practical purposes (i.e. those which are sovereign states). In reality, either way, something like Category:Wales or Category:Germany is still going to be under Category:Countries, it is just a question of whether to put it directly there or to put it there via a sub-category (e.g. Category:Constituent countries, or Category:Sovereign states). The most practical and clear cut way is to categorize sovereign states directly under Category:Countries and for all other 'types' of countries to be under sub-categories. Putting sovereign states as well in their own sub-category may be technically fine, but on a practical level will require a metric ton or ten of work to implement consistently across Commons. Josh (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: So all sovereign states are countries but not all countries are sovereign states. Isn't that an easy way to categorize? Cat 1 sovereign states and Cat 2 other . Reader's Digest has a nice write-up about it and Wales is on the list. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Eloquent Peasant Indeed, that is what I meant when I said that putting sovereign states in their own sub-category of countries, just as constituent countries and other 'types' of countries, would be technically-speaking an elegant solution (note: "other" is not workable, it would be cat 2, 3, 4, etc. with each for one 'type' of country...we don't do other/misc. type categorization). Practically-speaking it is a massive change to the current practice, that is not to say it wouldn't be the right way, but only if it comes with a viable plan for how to convert the tens of thousands of impacts that is going to have on current practice. I'm not one to shy away from a big project, but doing it as some kind of declaration without a good plan to implement, demonstration of a real understanding of the many downstream consequences of the change, and without a bit more buy-in from other folks seems a recipe for a well-intentioned mess. That is why for the time-being, I come down on the side of maintaining the status quo, with Category:Countries being for sovereign states and sub-cats for each of the other types. That said, were someone to actually propose a workable plan that accounts for the points mentioned above and seems actually effective at implementing the new scheme consistently without it becoming a giant fight, I may well support such an effort, and if it garners broad support and buy in from different corners, including sufficient users with the experience at different aspects (categorization, templates, navigation, etc.) to actually make it a success, I'll put my shoulder to that wheel. Without that though, I can't in good conscience support a change yet. Josh (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Absolutely. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support categorizing sovereign states (except the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands) directly under the country categories, and Josh's new proposal to categorize "other entities considered countries" to relevant subcats under country categories. Also, if there are no such subcats, such entities should be categorized directly under the country categories as [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar]]. I had initially created Countries and territories as an attempt to define countries as sovereign states only. However, that can be deleted once this discussion is closed. Since the term "country" has no universal definition, Dependent territories, Constituent countries and Non-self-governing territories can be considered as types of countries, as long as we don't run into "a thicket of exceptions and anomalies". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick overview and some additions

[edit]

At first glance, this discussion seems to be just about Wales. But it turns out it is also about definitions (and what subcategories should be placed in) and the relations between countries, sovereign states and other territories. And it looks like the decisions about these questions will be made here, though they have consequences for more countries than just Wales. So now it is time for me to join this discussion.
We have:

Josh requested a workable plan for implementation. But before we can make such a plan, we need to know what exactly the problems are and how we want to solve them. Above I saw a lot of opinions and statements, some questions, but very little well-defined problems. So what exactly would we like to implement? What should be changed?

Closely related to Josh' request for a workable plan is the question: how should constituent countries, souvereign states and other territories (dependent or not) be treated in templates? Because when we add parent categories and navigation boxes manually, we ourselves can choose the ones we think are right. But in templates it is "one size fits all" and then things go wrong for the exceptions (suddenly "the Netherlands" is no longer a country of Europe in navigation boxes, as it was for many years, but "the Kingdom of the Netherlands" is, which has by far not as many categories as the Netherlands itself, and it is one click extra to get to the requested category for the Netherlands; and equally suddenly categories of the Netherlands get parent categories for North America because it has two small islands there, defined as municipalities, while there are no categories for those island for the topics involved; by the way, this also applies to France (and other countries with overseas territories, like the USA and UK), which gets automatically parent categories for Africa or other continents). Correcting those exceptions manually is an option (remove the template and add parents and navigation templates yourself), but the first passer-by editor will change it back again.

Questions

[edit]

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant:

  1. Why do we need two categories: countries as well as sovereign states, while they are about the same concept?
  2. What definitions/descriptions do we use on Commons for the categories involved (see list above)? I think we need an overview with short descriptions.
  3. What are the relations between them?
  4. What kind of subcategories should be placed in them?
  5. What exactly are the problems to be solved? Please one by one, each in one sentence/compact.
  6. What are solutions to these problems?
  7. Is there a conclusion for the discussion about Wales? Can that part of the discussion be closed?

Please add questions if you know more (and add your name to them).

Problems to be solved

[edit]
  1. How to handle exceptions in templates for countries, like constituent countries and territories overseas? [JopkeB]
    1. Should we treat them as countries?
      All sovereign states should be called "countries" in Commons, including states with limited recognition. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands should be called "countries" only if they participate in certain international events or organizations as a single unit. Otherwise, their constituents will be considered as separate countries. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The constituent countries of the United Kingdom should be called "countries" only if they participate in certain international events or organizations separately. Otherwise, they will be considered as parts of the UK. Also, the islands of Great Britain and Ireland may be considered as countries if they participate in certain international events or organizations as such. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The dependent territories should generally be considered as separate from their parent countries. They can be listed with countries like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar]], where Foo is a topic and Bar is a dependent territory. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Agree But this means that there is not "one size fits all" solution and we have to differentiate:
      • for sports events, for example, "countries" might be a mix of dependent territories and sovereign states; some sovereign states are not participating, only their dependent territories;
      • in the United Nation, for example, only sovereign states are participating, not their dependent territories.
      This might have consequences for the solutions we implemented so far. JopkeB (talk) 05:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2. What is more important: political aspects (constituent countries and territories overseas are part of sovereign states) or geographical ones (they are part of a specific continent)?
      The answer to this question is tricky, because both sides have their own problems. If you consider the political aspects, countries like France and the United Kingdom would spread across five continents. If you consider the geographical aspects, you have to consider the Asian and European sides of Russia and Turkey as separate countries. So my proposal is to use the political aspects for countries like Russian and Turkey, and geographical ones for other countries. In the latter case, the countries will be categorized according to their main continents (like the USA to North America) and the overseas territories to their own continents, even though they are not dependent territories (like Hawaii to Oceania). --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Agree I think this would be a good solution. The big question is: how can we implement it?
      • For example, I think it is not an option to split Russia and Turkey into seperate categories for the Asian and European sides of them. Uptill now the solution for navigation boxes is, to have both a European and an Asian template for them. That works well, so we can keep this solution untill we find a better one.
      • That leaves us to find a solution for France, the United Kingdom and other sovereign countries that spread across two or more continents. I guess somewhere on Commons there is a list (that I cannot find) that defines the continents for each sovereign country (and perhaps other territories), because the parent categories of both (France and UK) are only Europe. I suppose that list should be adjusted.
      JopkeB (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Should France, the Netherlands, Denmark, USA, and so on, always get parent categories of continents for all of their territories, even if there are no categories for that topic for the other territories?
      As said above, these countries will be categorized according to their main continents, where overseas territories belonging to other continents are excluded. Those territories will be categorized to their parent countries and their own continents. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
       Agree JopkeB (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Or should regular templates be left out in the exceptions and should parent categories and navigation boxes be added manually, with a note for editors not to add those templates?
      This would obviously be a setback for implementing the {{Topic by country}} series of templates. However, the exceptions can be easily addressed by editing the subtemplates of {{Country label}}. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK. But I do not understand the Country label, I need a more extensive explanation in plain English, for laypersons like me, about when to use it (in what kind of situations), what it exactly does, with examples. JopkeB (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5. Or should regular templates always be added and do we accept a lot of red parent categories, odd parent categories of continents and countries being left out in navigation boxes?
      We should try to minimize red parent categories where possible. If you can eliminate unuseful regions from the subtemplates of {{Country label}}, you may get fewer red parent categories for them. You can also edit the {{Topic by country/data}} template for the same reason, but I won't recommend to do it without a good knowledge of the entire category structure. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At first sight the Topic by country/date looks usable. I have to work with it to see whether this is a good solution. JopkeB (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add problems (and perhaps solutions) if you know more (and add your name to them).

Wishes and criteria for solutions

[edit]
  1. Via navigation boxes by continent you can easily jump from territory to territory within that continent, no matter whether it is to contries, constituent countries or dependent territories. [JopkeB]

Please add wishes and criteria if you know more (and add your name to them).
--JopkeB (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: I was away from this discussion for more than a month, because the discussion is becoming too long. I gave different contradictory proposals to agree with the common usage of the term "country". I have since found that the term "country" has been used differently in different contexts. So it is very problematic to provide a unique solution for this problem. I've replied to all of your queries. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to note is that while the {{Topic by country}} series of templates can categorize a country to its predetermined continent automatically, they cannot do it for its constituent regions. So I have to add continent categories manually for those regions. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the category Sovereign states is no longer necessary, since all sovereign states are considered countries. The kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands can be listed with other countries like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+Bar, Kingdom of]]. In certain sports, the "by country" categories should be read as "by sporting country", and if (say) England, Wales and Scotland participate as different countries in that sports, they will be directly categorized under "by country" categories, while their corresponding sovereign state (UK) will be categorized with other countries like this: [[Category:Foo by country|+United Kingdom]]. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least some of the US territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.) also compete separately. Would there be any value in using a different term for these cases? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All US territories, excluding DC, are already considered as dependent territories in Commons, and dependent territories will get the same status as their parent countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Sbb1413: for your remarks. It is OK to not participating for a while. I agree, this discussion is becoming very long, it has many aspects, is about an important subject and is complicated. That implies: no simple solution. JopkeB (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Category:Diasporas by country of origin, where I have arranged the sovereign states alphabetically, while dependent territories and constituent countries are arranged under +. This can act as a template for implementing my proposal, if accepted. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if my proposal is accepted, a mechanism must be implemented at {{Topic by country}} to allow subnational entities to be designated as countries. Otherwise, the template won't be implemented for subnational entities called "countries", including dependent territories and constituent countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: At first glance Category:Diasporas by country of origin looks good.
For clearity reasons: Can you please write here (again) your proposal in the form of action points, starting with a subheading in bold, mentioning "Proposal to/for ..." (with the purpose of the proposal, what should it solve)? JopkeB (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided my detailed proposal below. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Sbb1413: for attempting a solution and pinging me. Sorry for not signing my previous comment. I see there there are categories that do not belong in sovereign states, like Category:Diaspora by country of origin, which does not presently include the Basque diaspora.
However, I see it is made up of national groups, rightfully so, and not states, or countries, of origin. What would you call a Palestinian diaspora if the Palestinians abroad come from present-day state of Israel, "Diaspora of Israel"? Nonsense. What about the diaspora of the Armenians, they do not often come from present-day Armenia. In the case of the diaspora at least, "by national groups" works better, but let's face it, these categories will never be totally defined/close, reality is much more stubborn.
Not sure if I understand the template "Topic by country" either, but I may need to read calmly the rationale behind it. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do believe Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands etc. are "countries" and should be categorized as countries. There was a discussion about whether these are "part of the US" and it led to a change to the United States wikipedia article lead. Now the United States article on English Wikipedia states "Outside the union of states, it asserts sovereignty over five major unincorporated island territories and various uninhabited islands." See discussion if you're interested. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal by Sbb1413

[edit]
For countries in general
[edit]

In general, countries should be equated to sovereign states, which is the most obvious definition of the term "country". Dependent territories should be considered parts of parent countries. However, in Category:Categories by country, both sovereign states and dependent territories should be listed together, where sovereign states are categorized alphabetically and dependent territories are categorized under +. The {{Topic by country}} templates can be implemented in this case.

For Denmark and the Netherlands
[edit]

The categorization of the two countries depend on whether the categories for parent kingdoms exist or not. If such categories exist, they will be categorized alphabetically, while the constituent countries will be categorized under +. Otherwise, the constituents will be categorized alphabetically. The {{Topic by country}} templates should be implemented if the categories for parent kingdoms exist. Otherwise, don't implement the templates.

For member countries of an organization
[edit]

If a political entity is a member of an international organization with other countries, it should be considered as a member country of that organization. For example, England and West Indies are members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) along with other member countries. So England and West Indies can also be called member countries of the ICC even though they are not sovereign states (West Indies consists of Guyana and a bunch of island countries of the Caribbean).

For transcontinental countries
[edit]

For countries with territories across multiple continents, generally only the continent where the mainland (or capital) is situated should be taken as the parent continent. If the other territories in different continents are connected with the mainland (naturally or with bridges/tunnels), then the parent country should belong to multiple continents. For example, Russia and Turkey would belong to both Asia and Europe because Russia's Asian territory (Siberia and the Far East) is connected with its European territory by the Ural Mountains, while Turkey's European territory (Eastern Thrace) is connected with ite Asian territory (Anatolia) by bridges. On the other hand, Indonesia would belong to Asia only, because its Oceanian territory (Western New Guinea) is not connected with the rest of the country naturally or with bridges/tunnels.

The proposal is subject to change. Discuss my proposal below. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
[edit]

Thanks, Sbb1413, for your proposal. It looks good! My comment:

  •  Agree "countries should be equated to sovereign states". Does this means that Category:Sovereign states is redundant and should be deleted? If we agree, then I think, after this discussion has been closed, we should start a seperate discussion about this category.
  • "both sovereign states and dependent territories should be listed together":  Question Do you mean that even if there is a category for the sovereign state, the dependent territories should still be mentioned under the +? (So also for France, the USA and other countries?)
  • "For Denmark and the Netherlands":  Agree.
  • "For member countries of an organization":  Agree
  • "For transcontinental countries":  Agree

The first step is: do others agree as well? @Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant: please give your comment as well.
If yes, then the next question is: What would be a workable plan for implementation? Sbb1413 provided the impetus for this, but perhaps further elaboration is needed. --JopkeB (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbb1413: , let me second JopkeB's thanks for your effort in clearly laying out your proposal above. My comments:

  •  Strong support the scope of Category:Countries as sovereign states. As to JopkeB's question, Category:Sovereign states should become a redirect to Category:Countries as they will have identical scope.
  • When it comes to mixing sovereign and dependent entities:
    •  Oppose co-mingling sovereign states with dependent territories in most cases, however, for those cases where there is good cause to co-mingle them:
    •  Support the idea of assigning an alternate sort key to separate dependent territories from the sovereign states in any cases where they are categorized in the same category. However, keeping sort order in mind, "+" is not a good choice for this assignment, as it would sort them ahead of sovereign states, which seems out of order. Instead, a key such as "{" would place them after the main sovereign states. However, dependent territories and sovereign states should be intermingled only in limited cases, such as the Netherlands and Denmark or within a specific topic such as particular organizations (see below).
  •  Support using the official recognition of members of international organizations as countries within the topic of these organizations, but that definition is only applicable to categories specific to the organization. Essentially, it makes no sense to impose Commons' Category:Countries definition on the list of member countries of the IOC, and likewise, the IOC's interpretation of what is a country should not be applied to any categories not specific to the IOC.
  •  Support the idea of categorizing constituent countries as if they were sovereign states in cases where the sovereign state category does not exist, and in cases where it does exist, categorizing them in 'by country' indices with a "{" (see above for sort key discussion) sort key leader.
  •  Strong oppose trying to define the continent of a country in any way that severs the link between a country and any continent on which they have territory. I appreciate the attempt to define some kind of contiguous standard, but it gets convoluted and fails to recognize the reality of the modern sovereign state. Just because a piece of territory is far away or has a water barrier or what have you doesn't make it any less the country's territory than the very steps of their capital building. Hawaii is as much part and parcel of the US as Washington DC or NYC are, but the proposed limits would discount this and essentially give the impression that Hawaii and other US possessions in the Pacific are not really the important part of the US, not like their North American territories are at least. Essentially, the only non-ambiguous way to define what continent a country is associated with that doesn't inherently build in a value judgement is whether or not they have sovereign territory on that continent. If they do, then they are a country of that continent. If you want to have a sub-category such as 'countries with capitals in Europe' or 'countries with the majority of their territory in Africa' because you deem such a distinction as worth having, go ahead, but for say, Countries of Europe or Countries of Africa, the only criteria should be simple and objective: if they have territory in Africa, they are a country of Africa; if they have territory in Europe, they are a country of Europe. I see no reason why we would exclude a country just because we deem their territory on a given continent to be too small, different, far, unconnected, or otherwise for our taste.

Josh (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On Wikipedia Wales is in "Category:United Kingdom by country" and Category:Sovereign states redirects to Category:Countries. We have Category:Constituent countries of the United Kingdom and Category:Constituent countries which lists others so maybe Category:Sovereign states is redundant but there is Category:Countries by status which includes Sovereign states so I'd say maybe its not redundant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose rigid categories for national groups, but will not oppose "country" as sovereign state, per general usage in English, with all its nuances, as pointed above. It remains pretty disturbing that either "sovereign state", or "nation", or "country" should all refer to the same thing, while other national realities are reduced to ethnic groups, or other categories. As shown in the "Diaspora by country of origin", origins are not strictly sovereign states, or countries, but national groups (see my comment above). Iñaki LL (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not proposed anything on what to do with national groups yet. I'm trying to fix the definition of "country" in Commons, not the definition of "nation", which is a different thing. The problem is that the "People of country" categories are usually assumed to represent a national group by default, which needs to be fixed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would not like to keep the discussion in aeternum, so as fas as I am concerned, go ahead with "country" as sovereign state. I still believe a solution for national communities is needed in Commons categories, all the more obvious if we talk about historical periods. They may overlap, or not, the category "country". Iñaki LL (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions discussion about the Proposal by Sbb1413
[edit]
  1. For countries in general
    1. no agreement yet about how to mention countries and dependent territories in categories:
      1. there might be consensus about a proposal to sort sovereign states and dependent territories differently, but we need more discussion about how to do that exactly
    2. a seperate discussion is needed about the merger of Sovereign states and Countries, also because there are doubts
  2. For Denmark and the Netherlands: no objections.
  3. For member countries and organizations: it looks like there is an agreement; but we should be aware that what a "country" is, may differ per organization (like ICC, IOC and FIFA). So: no objections.
  4. For transcontinental countries: No agreement
  5. New: we also need a discussion about nations/national groups/ national communities/ethnic groups. My proposal is to keep a discussion about these subjects out of this discussion and limit this discussion to countries, states and dependent territories. Someone can start elsewhere a discussion about this matter.

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant: :

  • Do you agree with this summary?
  • If yes:  Actions to be taken:
    • Continu the discussion about How to sort sovereign states and dependent territories in categories?: how should that be done exactly?
    • Start a seperate discussion about the merger of Sovereign states and Countries.
    • Adjust the proposal for transcontinental countries.
    • Start a seperate discussion about nations/national groups/national communities/ethnic groups and how they fit in countries and souvereign states.

--JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably Denmark and the Netherlands and the United Kingdom countries should be treated in the same way. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Denmark and the Netherlands should be treated according to my proposal. Since the UK is generally considered as a single country and not as a kingdom of multiple countries, it should be listed like other countries alphabetically. However, when the constituent countries of the UK participate in certain organizations/events separately, they should be listed with other countries instead. In that case, the UK may be listed separately with the sortkey '+' (for supranational countries). Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the summary. My comments on the possible actions:
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the hard work on this. In the real world a sovereign state is a subclass of countries; as a temporary measure, if it helps, I'll compromise. Where I can't compromise is where the information is biased: Wales is a country and referred to it as a country, not as a constituent country of the cosmos, World, Europe or the UK. Classifying Wales as a 'Constituent country of the UK' only happens outside Wales, usually by the unionist of Westminster, who attempt to keep Wales a part of the UK. 90% of all sources classify Wales as a 'country', endof, whether we like it or not. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with the fact that virtually all reliable sources classify Wales as a country. However, it is not a sovereign state. Rather, it is a part of another sovereign state (UK). Virtually all reliable sources agree that sovereign states are countries and we want to use it as the primary definition of Category:Countries. This is why we use the term "constituent countries" for political entities called "countries" that are parts of sovereign states, which can be put under Category:Countries by status. Countries like Wales can be put under Category:Countries by name but with a different sortkey (preferably '{'), since Wales is not a sovereign state. Category:Dependent territories may or may not be countries, depending on context. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Classifying Wales as a 'Constituent country of the UK' only happens outside Wales, usually by the unionist of Westminster, who attempt to keep Wales a part of the UK. Sounds like a politically motivated statement. We generally don't accept such non-neutral ideas in any Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia. Yes, you might be critical to the union state of four countries (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), but the fact that they are parts of a union state cannot be erased. Wales is indeed a part of the UK, be it a so-called "unionist" opinion, or be it the fact accepted by the whole academia researching on Britain and Ireland. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

State of affairs

[edit]

We agree upon:

  • Category:Sovereign states is redundant and may get a redirect to Category:Countries; a seperate DR will be made after this discussion has been closed.
  • What a "Country" is, is dependent on the context: for sports organizations and events there may be a mix of dependent territories and sovereign states; UN members are only sovereign states.
  • Constituent countries may be categorized as if they were sovereign states in cases where the sovereign state category does not exist.
    • In that case: Assigning an alternate sort key to separate dependent territories from the sovereign states, but only where they are categorized in the same category and with a key such as "{" which places them after the main sovereign states. Intermingling dependent territories and sovereign states should be limited to specific cases, such as the Netherlands and Denmark or within a specific topic such as particular organizations.
  • Russia and Turkey should both be treated as one country, with parts of them being in two continents. Templates should reflect this.
  • Category: Nations is not part of this discussion; Sbb1413 has opened a seperate discussion for this subject.

We do not agree upon:

  • How countries should be treated that are associated with more than one continent. [My personal opinion:] I think it still is odd (perhaps even misleading) to have continent Africa as a parent for France for a specific topic category, if there is no such category for at least one of its dependant territories in Africa (or the Netherlands for North America, or any other country for any continent).

Outstanding questions:

  1. How can we solve the issue of continent parents for countries that are on more than one continent?
  2. What is {{Country label}} for? When should it be used (in what kind of situations), what does it exactly do? Please give also examples.

@Joshbaumgartner, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, Sbb1413, and The Eloquent Peasant: : Do you agree with this summary? Do you have suggestions to solve the questions? --JopkeB (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said before, Josh's argument for associating countries with overseas possessions with overseas continents contradicts the common sense. We generally tend to categorize countries like France and the UK as countries of Europe and not as countries of Africa, Asia, North America, South America etc. In my opinion, we should stick to the common sense and categorize the overseas possessions to their parent categories as well as to their parent continents. For example, the categories of Category:French Guiana are categorized under both France and South America, while France itself should be categorized under Europe only, as its mainland/capital is in Europe. Similarly, we categorize the categories of Category:Centre Spatial Guyanais (Guiana Space Centre, a spaceport in French Guiana) under both France and South America.
  • There should be no question for the template {{Country label}}, which is originally created as part of the {{Topic by country}} series of templates. I have added the "adjective" parameter in the template for my {{National navigation}} and {{National diaspora}} templates. {{National navigation}} should be used on cases where categories are named like "[country adjective] [topic]", like the diaspora categories. Of course, we generally don't name categories like "[country adjective] [topic]", according to our guidelines. Instead, we name categories like "[topic] of [country]" or "[topic] from [country]".
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only case where we should avoid the {{Topic by country}} series of templates is the categories of constituent countries if the category for their corresponding sovereign state is missing, and we don't have categories for other constituent countries of the state. For that case, we should manually categorize the country with other countries alphabetically. For example, if we have a category of Category:England and we don't have categories of the UK, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, then we may categorize England directly with other countries alphabetically. Of course, such situation has rarely occurred with England/UK, but it occurs often with Denmark/Kingdom of Denmark and the Netherlands/Kingdom of the Netherlands. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Sbb1413, but I can't disagree with you more on your continent comments. Appeals to common sense are a poor basis for rational argument. The truth is that common sense isn't so common; it is highly dependent on individual perspective and experience and merely masquerades as some kind of universal truth in our minds. But that aside, your argument lacks reason...more specifically it lacks a reason why we need to restrict a country to only some of its territory: the part the Anglo-centric community most readily associates with a given country. Make no mistake, if you asked me to point to France on a globe, I'd probably spin it to Europe, point to Metropolitan France and say voila. Yes, I get that France is first and foremost a European country, and if we were asking for the primary continent of a country, you might have a point. But we aren't. Listing France as a country of South America is very valuable from an educational perspective, as not everyone may be aware of the important territorial holdings they have there or on other continents as readily as they may be aware of their European holdings. Cutting France out of the list of South American holdings eliminates this educational opportunity (the fundamental reason for the existence of the project). Likewise if a users is perusing the countries of North America, why should they not see France listed? France is a North American country. It may not as readily come to mind as Europe, but it is no less true. Yes, you can list Guadaloupe under North America as if it were a country, but this merely confuses the matter by both obfuscating the fact that it is French territory, and portraying it as a sovereign state which it is not. A user can of course dig deeper and learn these facts, but why hide them under a layer for no good reason? Which is in the end the hardest thing I have with your proposal: besides going against your particular take on common sense, even if the problems with your proposal could be mitigated, there doesn't appear to be any concrete need to do it. I see the many losses it brings, but where's the win? Josh (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Suppose you are looking for a photo about subject A in South America. You are clicking on Subject A in France and then you cannot find any subcategory about South America, because none of the French territories in South America has a category about subject A. Do you have a solution for this situation? JopkeB (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: Good question, but I'm not sure how that differs from if you simply replace South America with Europe in your question. I do not have a solution for that per se, but I'm not sure how the proposal solves it either, or even that it is really a problem. "Categories" do not necessarily equal "classes". They are hierarchical relationships, but if A is under B is under C, it does not necessarily mean that all instances under A are instances of C, as a class relationship (e.g. Wikidata's 'subclass of'/'instance of' system) would indicate. That obviously is true for many categories, but not for all. Thus while France is certainly under Europe, there are many contents under France that are not Europe. If you have navigated to France from Europe (or South America), there should be no expectation that everything there will be of Europe (or South America), and indeed there may be topics under France which have absolutely nothing which is of Europe (or South America). Removing France from South America but leaving it in Europe certainly does not change this. Perhaps the case could be made that your situation indicates that connecting countries to continents at all is problematic, but I don't think anyone is yet proposing completely doing away with country-to-continent categorization. Josh (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I agree that categories do not always equal classes. But I would like to limit those cases as much as possible. And I think Sbb1413 has proposed a fine solution that will solve this problem:
  • Only the continent where the mainland (or capital) is situated should be taken as the parent continent. So for Category:France only Europe will be the parent category for the continent.
  • Categorize the overseas possessions to their parent categories as well as to their own continents. For example: the categories of French Guiana are categorized under both France and South America, while the categories for the mainland of France in Europe should be categorized under Europe only.
So the links between for instance Hawaii and the USA will stay, but the links to the continent of Hawaii and USA will be indirect, through Hawaii only.
And I think this should not be about whether a part of a country seems "important" or not, but about the end user searching for pictures of a continent; the outcome should not be that (s)he is directed to the wrong continent. Would you please consider the proposal of Sbb1413 as a solution for this problem?
User:Sbb1413: Did I summarize your proposal correctly? JopkeB (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB I absolutely have carefully considered whether Sbb1413's proposal would solve the problem as I understand it, and I laid out clearly how it does not solve that problem at all as far as I can see. However, I am open to the idea that maybe I just am missing what the actual problem is you are really seeing with having France listed in North America and such. I might be the stupid one here, so please forgive me for asking for additional explanation, but what exactly is the problem we are trying solve here? I have also detailed many problems would be caused by implementing this proposal. Even if it may solve one problem, doing so by creating several new ones isn't really forward progress.
(Side note, I have great respect for both Sbb1413 and yourself, and the good work that both of you do. I do not comment here lightly or without considering the words and ideas you both present before replying. I hope to get the same level of respect in return. I am not trying to be difficult or dismissive here, and I am not staked to my idea being the only solution, which hopefully is evident from the many discussions we have had in the past, most all of which have reached constructive conclusions, many of them different from either of our initial ideas. I do not think Sbb1413 has presented a bad idea, just one I disagree with vehemently. I have listed my concerns in detail but for the most part these do not seem to have been addressed very comprehensively. Also, I want to be clear: while I do feel this proposal would have the effect of biasing certain perspectives and be problematic as a result, I in no way would assume that either you nor Sbb1413 have any intention of promoting bias or prejudice. I assume good intentions on both of your parts in all of this. This is solely a discussion about the proposal, its details, and its consequences.)
Before we adopt any proposal, three basic steps should be taken:
  1. Show a demonstrable improvement to Commons (or WM as a whole) that the proposal would make (this could be solving a problem, or just a pure improvement, or some combo)
  2. Understand the other consequences that implementation would have, in particular negative ones, and if applicable, show how any negatives can be mitigated
  3. Determine if the improvements expected from step 1 will be sufficiently beneficial to the whole that the negatives identified in step 2, considering mitigations, are acceptable (i.e. Do the wins outweigh the losses?)
Thus far, I have seen very little of #1, and almost none of #2, so #3 isn't even feasible yet. I would really appreciate further elaboration on #1 and some dialog on #2 before being asked to get onboard a proposal I have clear concerns about. Thank you, Josh (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please implement this asap. People in the UK for example is in the cat "People of South America" or "People of Africa". Once that is done, maybe it would be good to consider removing these cats entirely or adding them only to finer subcategories or something. WMC categorization means all the files/subcategories are part of / relate to the parent category which is clearly not the case here. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Prototyperspective: , that is exactly what I mean. Good example. JopkeB (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sbb1413 for your work on the listed templates. I was using the parameter "adj" for adjectival form in some previous work, but I am pretty settled on category names almost always being in noun form, not adjective, and confusing country categories with 'nation' categories is one of the reasons. Many years ago, I did do some categorization using the adjectival form for countries on some aircraft categories, but pretty readily regretted it. Adjectival forms are not nearly as regulated as country names, and so different forms creep in (e.g. "Argentine"/"Argentinian", "United States"/"American"), and for several countries, there just isn't an adjectival form that really works, so when to just use the noun in the adjective position is a question. In the end, I think you are right that when actually speaking of the country, we should use noun form in category name, such as "Aircraft in Argentina", "People from the United States", etc. Thank you again for good work on the templates and trying to unravel country vs. nation categorization schemes. Josh (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea with {{Topic by country}} was for it to work fine for both sovereign states and dependent territories, including constituent countries. It does depend on the entity being correctly set up in {{Country label}} so that is a known maintenance issue. Also, I have not made any tweaks to it to take into account some of the recent decisions such as the Denmark/Netherlands consensus, and not sure if anyone else has. I still have a lot of museum exhibit pictures from my recent travel to upload, so I'm waiting for the dust to settle on these discussions before I open the hood and make sure the templates are compatible with the consensuses (consensi?...no) reached. However, I try and respond to any pings regarding anything not working right with them. Josh (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure Sovereign states is redundant to Countries since a sovereign state is a type of country. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crouch, Swale You are completely correct that the English word "country" covers a lot more ground that just sovereign states, and that is why Sovereign states was created as a sub of Countries if I am not mistaken. One of the ideas considered was to have that category used for sovereign states while countries became just a parent for all of the entities that could be a country in any way, shape or form. This runs up against a significant practical barrier, in that the current scope of Category:Countries is as sovereign states, and the sheer quantity of changes that would be necessary to implement this is pretty much off the charts. Since no one was able to propose an actual feasible plan for how to do so successfully, the consensus was to table that and leave the status quo in place, hence Countries be Commons categorization for sovereign states. If such an action plan arises and really does address the massive impact of such a change and mitigate the many consequences, it can be addressed. Until then I still support keeping Countries = Sovereign states. Josh (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joshbaumgartner: I guess if the current convention is to have countries and sovereign states as the same thing it may be best to keep as is like Wikipedia but it may be better to reconsider. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm completely sympathetic to your point. Most of the time I'm not one to shy away from a big project if it means getting it right, but given the sheer size of converting nearly all of our current use of the word 'country' to 'sovereign state' in category naming across the board (not to mention the templates and supporting policy docs that go with it) is too much for even me to go for without it coming with a very good plan for how to do it. Josh (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Josh's statement is true. It is like a teraproject to convert every instances of countries (ambiguous term) into sovereign states (unambiguous term). The opposite is true for Category:Automobiles (unambiguous term) → cars (ambiguous term). Instead, I think we should keep Category:Sovereign states for sovereign states and Category:Countries for (sovereign states+constituent countries+other entities called "countries" depending on context). There is no rigid definition of the term "country", although the term always includes sovereign states. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joshbaumgartner: @Crouch, Swale: @JopkeB: @The Eloquent Peasant: @Llywelyn2000: @Auntof6: @Place Clichy: Thanks all for your contributions. Sorry for the delay, I could not participate earlier in this last stage, so I will do now. I am not a native English speaker, and this category is related to English usage. According to the above contributions, "country" is not as narrow as I thought, in the sense that it may encompass a semantic threshold wider than sovereign state.
    As noted by Sbb1413 above, Automobile is unambiguous, as well as Sovereign states. Put the burden of subcategories on sovereign states where applicable (Topic by sovereign state), avoid redundancy and semantic appropriation (country = sovereign state) and keep country open, as parent, according to the considerations noted, while avoiding all the work involved to change status quo. That I would see as an appropriate summary and the way forward. Iñaki LL (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iñaki LL, thank you for adding here. It sounds to me like we have broad agreement that the preferred state of affairs would be to have all sovereign states categorized as such in their sub-category, leaving Category:Countries to be the more broadly defined container for Category:Sovereign states and other types of 'countries', each with their own sub-category. Support for keeping the current state of affairs ('Countries' = 'Sovereign states') seems to be pretty much based on the transition being, as Sbb1413 puts it, a 'teraproject'. Thus, it seems the only discussion is to figure out a workable plan to transition from the current state of affairs to our desired state of affairs, and agree that it is worth the effort. If this is done, we should be able to conclude this discussion and begin implementation.
    @Crouch, Swale, @JopkeB, @Sbb1413, is this a fair assessment? Josh (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read all the above comments, and the only thing we can all agree is that the term "country" is fairly ambiguous when it comes to entities like Category:Constituent countries, Category:States with limited recognition and Category:Dependent territories. We should keep the definition of the term "country" as broad as possible to cover the political meaning. The definition of the category should be written as follows: "A country is a region that is identified as a distinct political entity. A country may be a sovereign state, a constituent country, or a dependent territory." The proposed definition is in line with the political definitions of country in Wikipedia. Although the categories Category:Countries and Category:Sovereign states will coexist, the individual sovereign states will be categorized under Category:Sovereign states by name instead of Category:Countries by name. Similarly, dependent territories and constituent countries will be categorized under Category:Dependent territories by name and Category:Constituent countries by name. This is because of the varying usage of the term "country", and there are cases where the term is used to mean a "sovereign state" only. I had named Category:Countries of the Antarctic in line with other "countries of continent/region" categories and categorized the dependent and claimed territories located in the Antarctic. However, it was nominated with a claim that there are no "countries" in the region, since the entities are not "countries". So, the primary definition of the term "country" should be a "sovereign state", with other definitions used depending on context, and the category Category:Countries of the Antarctic should be renamed to Category:Dependent territories in the Antarctic. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the category Category:Countries will be divided into precise categories as said above, the category Category:Categories by country will be kept untouched. The latter should be used to categorize "countries" with varying definitions, like Category:Categories by city. I had created Category:Countries and territories as an attempt to distinguish between dependent territories and other countries. That category will be converted into a dab page once this discussion is over. I request Joshbaumgartner to provide the "constituent country" type in {{Topic by country/layout}} for countries that are parts of another country, including dependent territories, so that the dependent territories can be categorized under "by country" categories with their own sortkeys (preferably "{name}") automatically. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, it seems I misunderstood something on Sbb1413's reply at 17:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC). The solution... not my cup of tea, so to say, but as noted above if the Category:Country > Category:Sovereign state transition (and its derivations) is so demanding, then that may be the best way forward. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that is the case, then the transition should not be abrupt. Instead, create categories for each sovereign states and dependent territories so that someone else can convert the category Category:Countries into a dab page in not-so-distant future. However, I won't support such decision and categories like Category:Countries and Category:Categories by country should be kept, with the primary definition being sovereign states. The separate Category:Sovereign states and Category:Dependent territories will be kept as subcategories of Category:Countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my proposal is accepted, I would request Joshbaumgartner to add parameters like "constituent country" and "dependent" in {{Topic by country/layout}} for constituent countries and dependent territories respectively. They will be categorized under "by country" categories with the sortkey {name}. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sbb1413, once we have a consensus on the framework of what the end-state scheme should look like for this topic, there are two things that I will commit significant time to making sure get done:
    1. top-down review and update of the {{Topic by country}} family of templates to make them compatible with the new scheme (I have actually been considering rolling them into the {{Category navigation}} family for a while now, so may do so at that point)
    2. new sub-section of Commons category policies to provide guidance on how to maintain and create country-related categories going forward
    Since the details of both of these are dependent on exactly what we settle on by way of consensus, I won't be expending much effort in the meantime worrying about the details of either, as that is putting the cart a good ways in front of the horse.
    As for getting the framework set, I'm letting things percolate a little but will have some comments on that in the next few days. Also, once we have something we agree on, I feel strongly that we need to give a more than ample opportunity for the community at large to weigh in on this, so soliciting comments at VP and other beyond-CfD forums and allowing time for users to participate. Josh (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

States with limited recognition

[edit]

I had attempted to merge Category:Categories by state with limited recognition to Category:Categories by country, since states with limited recognition are also countries and we can easily categorize them with other countries l. However, Laurel Lodged has reverted my changes, which has prompted me to start a CFD on them. However, to avoid fragmenting country category-related discussions into separate CFDs, I'm starting a sub-CFD here. This can also provide an insight on the possibilities of different Category:Categories by country by country type, including Category:Categories by sovereign state and Category:Categories by dependent territory. Pinging @Laurel Lodged: . --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. A state with limited international recognition is not always a country. Nor are all countries states. Wales is a country but not a state. The same might be said for Abkhazia, though some would say that it is just a break-away province, not even a country. Some countries have the potential to become recognised states. But we should not engage in wishful thinking on the matter nor crystal ball gazing. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, per the Wikipedia article on w:International recognition of the State of Palestine, the country is now recognized by more than 145 UN members, which means the country is no longer a "state of limited recognition". So I have commented the categorization of the State of Palestine to the categories related to the Category:States with limited recognition. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That means, there will be four three types of Countries in Commons: Sovereign states, Dependent territories, States with limited recognition and Constituent countries. Similarly, there will be three types of States in Commons: Sovereign states, States with limited recognition and Constituent states. I think the types of countries and states might dictate the common definitions of both terms. In my opinion, to define certain categories that are ambiguous yet common, we should look into the possible meanings and types of those categories and define them accordingly. Disambiguating ambiguous terms is not always helpful. For instance, the term World is an ambiguous term with a lot of meanings. However, we haven't disambiguated it because the term is commonly used for stuff that are common across the Earth. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading Laurel Lodged's comment and navigating through various Wikipedia articles, Inhave realized that not all states with limited recognition are sovereign states. A state can be considered sovereign under the "declarative theory" or the "constitutive theory" of statehood. Entities like Chinland and Ambazonia are unrecognized states that don't satisfy either theories of statehood (as per reliable sources). Therefore, the new definition of the term "country" in Commons is to include sovereign states, dependent territories and constituent countries. Less-recognized states that satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory (as per reliable sources) can be included with sovereign states. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @Sbb1413 Can I ask what improvement to Commons you think will be realized by doing all of this parsing of states and countries that you propose? Josh (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am doing these to improve Commons in the following ways:
  • To establish a consistent definition of certain terms that have different meanings.
  • To improve end users' experience on how to use categories to access the desired files.
Both countries and states are types of political entities. However, their usages are varied and quite overlapping, which cause problems to political entities like dependent territories, and subdivisions called "countries" or "states". So, I have summarized my current proposal as follows:
  • Countries — distinct political entities, which may or may not be independent. These include sovereign states, dependent territories, and constituent countries.
    • Countries by status — to list three main types of countries, as defined above.
      • Sovereign states — political entities that satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory of statehood.
      • Dependent territories — non-sovereign possessions of sovereign states that are considered distinct from their mainlands.
      • Constituent countries — administrative units named "countries".
  • States — political entities that regulate society and the population within their territories. These include sovereign states, states with limited recognition, constituent states, and quasi-states.
    • States by type — to list four main types of states, as defined above. It can also be used to list forms of government.
      • Sovereign states — states that satisfy either the declarative theory or the constitutive theory of statehood.
      • States with limited recognition — self-descriptive category; includes sovereign states and other self-declared independent states without widespread recognition. The maximum threshold criteria for inclusion is the recognition from more less than 50% of sovereign states. The State of Palestine is currently excluded from this category for enjoying recognition from 145 UN members, although some of the so-called "great powers" don't recognize it.
      • Constituent states — administrative units named "states".
      • Quasi-states — for self-declared independent states that don't satisfy either theories of statehood. They are excluded from the categories of countries.
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the proposed definition of "limited recognition" for use in Commons. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

[edit]

Since there are no comments for more than two weeks, I have requested an experienced and uninvolved user to close this discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per my analysis as an involved user, I found no obvious consensus, since there are multiple proposals and counter-proposals of defining a country (including mine). The best thing would be to revert to status quo and split this discussion into multiple smaller discussions. With this, we can resolve categories like Sovereign states, Dependent territories, and Constituent countries more easily. I have drafted my proposed category scheme for world subdivisions at User:Sbb1413/Places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently noticed that en:Category:States had been deleted at the end of December 2015 for being too ambiguous. The CFD nomination states, ""State" can mean a sovereign country; or a country subdivision; or a country that belongs to an intergovernmental organization, whether it is sovereign or not; and several other things. It's not a useful term to categorize by because it is ambiguous; the category page should be a category disambiguation page." So I think we can do away with States and categorize most types of states under Countries by status or Countries by type. I have added the alternative proposal at User:Sbb1413/Places. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons categories were a lot less developed in 2015. That may have been the right call for how it was used at that time, but you have proposed a structure that seems to make is less ambiguous and at least worthy of discussion. I do think that at some point zooming out both 'countries' and 'states' to such a macro-level, I wonder if they kind of cross-meld at that point, but we can discuss that in detail in your subsequent discussions. Josh (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I must have missed the notification on this one since my last comment, so my apologies for not responding to your latest outline. I think you might have a good idea with closing this one as no consensus, but then opening some more focused ones under the appropriate higher-level categories. This is a very major change in structure for us, so I do not think we should be rushing to action, but it would certainly be nice to reach at least some points that we can put to work on improving things.
 Comment I actually revisited this discussion as a result of participating in the discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Georgia as I was wondering if maybe we should be concerned with a change in the meaning of "country" (within Commons category names) being adopted, and if that could impact that discussion. I'm guessing that isn't occurring in the short term at least, so I won't worry about raising the point there, but it just another indicator of the far-reaching consequences of a change like this (not itself a reason to not do it, just to keep in mind). Josh (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usual meaning of countries has been sovereign states, regardless of the dispute on the definition. The Republic country of Georgia (using full name to avoid ambiguity) is indeed a sovereign state and a country, as confirmed by multiple sources. And you're right, we should move away from this centralized discussion and focus on individual (potential) subcategories instead. For now, the Countries category can be defined as merely a type of distinct political entity without going into the specifics. While sovereign states are always countries, we have to discuss whether other types of states and territories can be considered as countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly offtopic, but I've noticed an interesting thing in Wikidata. In the Query Builder, I found that no item has used England as the country, and only the Wikidata item of Markland (Scots) is using Scotland as the country. On the other hand, I found numerous items using Wales and Northern Ireland as countries. This means that there are valid reasons to consider the constituent countries as countries. However, as said numerous times before, countries generally refer to sovereign states, and other meanings can be covered on a case-by-case basis. So even if this discussion is closed as no consensus, we will continue discussing the individual types of countries. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 I am in agreement that perhaps it is best if we leave countries essentially as is, including all sovereign states but also open to other 'countries'. Specific cases can be discussed as needed. Josh (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since my request for closure is archived without response, we should wait if other involved users agree to close this category and open CFDs for the following cases:
  • States (including sovereign states and limited recognition states)
  • Dependent territories
  • Constituent countries
Until the CFDs are resolved, I will provide a temporary, vague description for the Countries category. Once the CFDs are resolved, I will change the description according to the prevailing consensus. I bet most sovereign states (including India and the US) won't be affected by our actions with these categories.​​​​​​​ Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 18:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for closure

[edit]

@Sbb1413, Llywelyn2000, Auntof6, Iñaki LL, Place Clichy, Crouch, Swale, and The Eloquent Peasant:

I think we are all pretty much orbiting around the same basic concepts here, so perhaps we can proceed with closure of this CfDs with a pretty simple consensus, while more specific issues can be taken up in more focused discussions.

Essentially, Category:Countries can remain the home for sovereign states, and can also include other entities that are considered countries. Specific entities whose consideration as countries is controversial can be discussed individually in specific CfDs. I'm hopeful that we can adopt these basic tenets out of this discussion:

  1. The scope of Category:Countries is slightly relaxed to include all sovereign states, as well as permitting other entities considered countries.
  2. Sub-categories of Countries can be created for diffusion by type of country as per the normal Commons category policies for sub-category creation.
  3. An index of Countries by name should be maintained for users to find countries without prejudice to any diffusion, simply listed by name.
  4. Indices of topics by country (e.g. Category:Science by country) can include contents where the 'country' is any entity which would be categorized in the Category:Countries tree. Essentially, anything a user is reasonably likely to seek under a 'by country' index should be permitted there. Rarely will there be a need to diffuse this index (akin to Category:Science by constituent country or something), so all countries, regardless of type can live here if they have a category on the topic.
  5. COM:OVERCAT rules can be relaxed for index categories. This should be applied to 'by country' indices as well, thus permitting parent and child entities, should both be countries in their own way, to both be listed in the same index without requiring OVERCAT resolution. This should prevent arguments over which level of country is the right one to include in an index.
  6. For topics specific to a particular international organization or order, use that organization's official rules for which countries are included in that organization's topics.
  7. Templates, where possible, should be adapted to permit this broader range of countries in their processes. Naturally templates may not always be up to date or technically able to cover all cases, so additional manual categorization may be required in some cases.
  8. Navigation boxes, due to technical limitations on expensive parser functions and the need to be compact and useful for the given topic, can exercise editorial judgement over what countries are or are not included in a given list. Such a decision is no indication of whether an entity is or is not a country and whether or not it should be included in Category:Countries or in 'by country' indices. Discussions on inclusion in a given list should take place on a given template's talk page.

Applying this to the OP category, Category:Wales:

  1. Category:Wales can be considered a country, and can therefore be categorized under Category:Countries.
  2. Category:Wales may be appropriately diffused into sub-category Category:Constituent countries and so forth within the Category:Countries tree, in accordance with Commons category policies
  3. Category:Wales should be added to Category:Countries by name. This index should not be diffused.
  4. Topics of Wales, such as Category:Science in Wales should be included in the science index at Category:Science by country
  5. With relaxation of COM:OVERCAT, Science in Wales and Science in the United Kingdom can both live together under Science by country.
  6. As Wales participates as a country in things like association football, its association football categories should be treated as a country within that topic.
  7. {{Country label}} should identify Wales as a constituent country and templates should, to the best of their ability, support the above organizations in country.
  8. Wales can be included in navigation by country boxes, particularly those for Europe or specific organizations Wales is part of. There may be cases where Wales is not included due to technical limitations, but this should not be interpreted as a claim upon Wales' status one way or the other.

In any case, none of these tenets should be considered written in stone for ever more, but merely an adjustment for now that can be further refined by future discussion. In a lot of cases, specific examples will require further discussion, and participants should feel free these guidelines as best serves the specific cases. Future discussions should be able to build upon, not feel constrained by, these guidelines. Adopting these basics would be good forward progress, but would not require a wholesale reconstruction of the whole countries tree, so the be benefit-to-disruption ratio is pretty favorable. Josh (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
100% agree. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Agree This flexibility would solve a lot of issues. Still two questions:
  1. What is an "OP category"?
  2. I guess there are a lot of changes needed in categories, templates and navigation boxes. How will that be implemented?
JopkeB (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB, my apologies, I used "OP" as short-hand for original post, i.e. referring to the category originally referenced at the start of the discussion.
As for the changes, my thought is that since this is basically just a relaxation of the scope, no hard and fast changes are immediately required, but some of the entities that will now be permitted can now migrate as folks feel it makes sense. For some, that had already been done to one degree or another, hence prompting this CfD in the first place, and that can now continue. As for templates, they can be updated over time to support the broader scope, but in the meantime, categories can be added manually. For templates I work on, if I see manual categories in addition being used, I often look to work them into the template somehow, but there can be technical limits that make leaving it to manual categories in some cases the better option. As for navboxes, there is no requirement that they immediately accommodate additional 'countries', as they do have some reasons to be selective in their scope. As we notice useful additions, they can be added to the navboxes, though this may warrant some discussion on any given box if it creates technical issues. Again, this is not a rush need, but can be done over time as we see the need. Josh (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Joshbaumgartner: for the answer. This makes sense. --JopkeB (talk) 05:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I am  Oppose most of the items of this proposal, and I think they don't reflect the consensus of this discussion. Specifically:
    1. The scope of Category:Countries should not be extended to every possible entity considered or called a country. Otherwise there will be no end to that (welcome Basque Country, Black Country, West Country, Wine Country etc.)
    4 & 5. COM:OVERCAT, when applied to categories of Topics by country, should be relaxed strictly to allow room for dependent territories significantly separated from their mainland, largely unrecognized countries and former countries, but NOT sub-national entities.
More generally, the notion of constituent country covers vastly different realities when applied to either Denmark and Netherlands (which in fact have entities with a status more akin to that of dependent territories such as the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, or Overseas France) and the four home nations of the UK, which all 4 have themselves very different statuses (e.g. Northern Ireland is commonly called a province, not a country). Place Clichy 17:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My counterarguments:
  1. Why do we want to extend the definition of countries to include every single entity called a country? Mainly entities that are commonly considered a country in international/global discourse should be included. This includes sovereign states, dependent territories and constituent countries.
  2. You may be right on which territory may we consider as a dependent territory. However, the SARs of China (Hong Kong and Macau) are adjacent to the mainland, yet they are commonly considered as dependent territories and hence countries.
I'm not talking about the constituent countries of the kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands right now, since you may consider them as similar to the dependent territories. However, the UK home nations, despite having very different statuses, participate in international sports as separate countries. Even the so-called "province" of Northern Ireland participates in FIFA and Euro separately. Northern Ireland is commonly called a "province" because it covers six of the nine counties of the historical Irish province of Ulster. Similarly, Wales is commonly called a "principality" because it was once ruled by the Prince of Wales when Wales was a separate realm. It doesn't mean that they are not UK countries. England, Scotland, Wales and NI are all countries of the UK. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "England, Scotland, Wales and NI are all countries of the UK" loses just so much of its meaning if you remove the "of the UK" part.
  1. I don't think that Wales is commonly considered a country in international/global discourse. For instance, it is way, way below the par of United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, that once included Alaska or Puerto Rico.
  2. You are right that Hong Kong and Macau are sometimes considered as dependent territories and sometimes not, and they are something of a special case. At least 3 reasons, put together, justify considering them as such despite the land connection with China: 1°) they were undeniably dependent overseas territories of the UK and Portugal before the handovers of 1997 and 1999; 2°) the explicit One country, two systems policy of China led to consider that the status of these territories did not fundamentally change with the handover of sovereignty; 3°) they were explicitly listed on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories. Nothing here can give us clues about the situation of Wales.
I don't think that sports teams give much indication either. Otherwise Israel would be in Europe. The UK also competes with a unified team in some competitions, such as the Olympics, and some sports, such as basketball and ice hockey. Place Clichy 20:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral I understand the issues posed by the present-day architecture of the Commons category system, as well as the difficulties derived from a nominal approach (entities named "country"). I also appreciate the spirit and flexibility of the proposal to reach a consensus, but I cannot agree with the semantic assimilation by nation states of the terms "nation", "country" and "sovereign states", least of all that the Basque Country be left out, a historic nation. (May I add that despite their formal coincidence, "Wine Country" (etc.) and "Basque Country", to cite two, have nothing to do in semantic terms) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2023/06/Category:Wales&oldid=963370322"