(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hong Kong has not been a British Crown Colony (a Colony of the British Crown) or a part of the Commonwealth of Nations since the 1st. July 1997, some EIGHTEEN years ago, and has in fact never been either in the Commonwealth in its own right as a member, or even been one of the named British Overseas Territories according to the enacting legislation introducing such a term, that is, the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, Chapter 8. The justification for making a special exception just for Hong Kong (but leaving out native-English-speaking Commonwealth realms and other parts of the Commonwealth) is increasing odd, strange, peculiar and questionable; and I suspect the inclusion of Hong Kong into this WikiProject might be being misused by certain Hongkong Chinese editors for certain particular political motives (those who actively want both the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China over Hong Kong and Chinese rule of Hong Kong to end). -- 5.198.6.211 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, technically Commonwealth realms have more in common than Hong Kong now, seeing that it has been in Chinese possession since 1997. I added Hong Kong in this project's scope because it was a contemporary territory, meaning that there are a lot of internet records of British Hong Kong pre-1997. You're right about the 2002 Act, but realms such as Canada and Australia no longer rely on British parliament, so I don't think they can be considered territories. I'm not aware of any Chinese editors using this project for political purposes? JAGUAR  18:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What are inclusion criteria for this wikiproject? I see my lots of treaties the are extended to one or more dependent terrories coming on my watchlist, but without a clear further relationship. These treaties are all already in categories like Category:Treaties extended to Jersey etc, so it may be easier to add those cats as project pages I'd say. L.tak (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, upon reconsideration I think that the treaties themselves shouldn't be included in this project's scope. With that being said, I think I need to write an official inclusion criteria for this project as so far it hasn't been set in stone. I was going to remove the project tags from the treaties but Good Olfactoy beat me to it. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. JAGUAR  22:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jaguar, the Antarctic territory west of 80 degrees west latitude is not part of the British Antarctic Territory, and should not be included in the scope of this project I reckon. In particular, this concerns a number of articles on locations in the Ellsworth Mountains that have recently been miscategorized as 'Geography of the British Antarctic Territory.' Best, Apcbg (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that! OK, I'm going about to remove all 'Geography of the British Antarctic Territory' categories from the Ellsworth Mountains. I'll post back when it's finished. JAGUAR  21:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

All categories now removed. JAGUAR  21:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks! Apcbg (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Jaguar, it would seem that a number of articles on Ellsworth Land locations still have the project tag although they are situated west of 80 degrees west latitude i.e. not part of BAT. Best, Apcbg (talk) 11:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

so I'm struggling to understand why the Moorish Science Temple of America, which isn't even a territory, has been included in this project. Doug Weller (talk) 11:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm clueless on why that was added in one of the categories. I agree it has nothing to do with this project so I've removed it. JAGUAR  15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Really - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Association of Arabic Dialectology as well? This is getting far too broad IMHO. And perhaps pointlessly broad. I suggest you wait until you actually become a group of editors (not just a couple) before expanding this, and get some agreement on scope. Doug Weller (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I admit those two were slip-ups. Firstly, I would like to stress that I have now finished tagging articles for this project. Anything else (if anyone can think of anything) would be optional and tagged on a much smaller scale. Before I tag pages in AWB I specifically exclude treaties by programming AWB to skip any pages with the keywords "Convention", "Agreement", "Protocol" and "Hague". I take liberties in excluding anything that doesn't belong to the project, so the articles you mentioned were unfortunately included in by mistake. I would love more members to get involved with this project as surprisingly it covers a large scope. Territories such as Gibraltar and Bermuda have broad scopes, for example. I think I need to create a "scope" page for this project soon, so any input from others would be great. JAGUAR  15:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your action on this and my request above. Sorry to say I don't have time to help. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 22:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I was having trouble when I was editing the Gibraltar article. A bit childish to summarily revert people really, just like that, in my view.

I don't know, it sounds more like something out of a period from the 19th century to the 1930s, when the Governments of British, Dutch and German colonies and of French, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian overseas territories and also the Government of the Belgian Congo, using deceptive advertisements and advertising, to lure unsuspecting poor or unemployed young Europeans living in Western Europe, to accept "hardship postings" in or under much harsher and unfavourable conditions in non-European-settled European colonies in Africa, Asia and Oceania...given the relatively small population (fewer than 50,000) of Gibraltar, perhaps the editors are actually civil servants in the Government of Gibraltar (or their family members), trying to make Gibraltar look like as if it were a constituent part and a separate Kingdom within a so-called "Kingdom of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" more on the line of the Kingdom of the Netherlands or the Kingdom of Denmark, or a fifth constituent part of the United Kingdom on the lines of England and Wales, and Scotland and Northern Ireland, or a bit of both! ... if not also peddling a myth that Gibraltar being somehow a full member in Gibraltar's own right of the EU and of the EEA! ... probably in order to lure, by "a bit" of deception, unsuspecting professionals and business investment and investors, who haven't done their proper homework, and unaware of the true constitutional status of Gibraltar, into Gibraltar as many and as much possible, before Brexit finally happens, when Britain (well, England and Wales, really; but so what?!) drags Gibraltar (along with Scotland and Northern Ireland) out of the EU and probably also the EEA (and sooner the better; for one thing, English law and the English common law wouldn't really exist in their present form, if the UK were to remain in the EU for another 70-200 years!)

Anyhow, to describe the "British" Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories as being "under [a] constitutional monarchy" is, quite frankly, patent nonsense. The British Crown is only a constitutional monarchy in the United Kingdom only. In the judgement in R (on the application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ([2008] UKHL 61, Session 2007-2008, on appeal from [2007] EWCA Civ 498)), in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Hoffmann said, in Points 31 and 32,

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-1.htm https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc-2.htm https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd081022/banc.pdf http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2008/61.doc

The Constitutions of the Crown Dependencies and of the British Overseas Territories, arguably, not being (because they are not) Acts of Parliament of the United Kingdom, do not actually bind the British Crown as such, exercised by the [Home] British Government, by the (in the case of British Overseas Territories) Foreign Secretary, through the Foreign Office (FCO), in the name of and for on behalf of the Secretary of State; thus the "British Monarchy" (the British Sovereign, as the British Crown) is and remains theoretically at least absolute, in the Crown Dependencies and in the British Overseas Territories, although exercisable and exercised by the [Home] British Government.

-- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused, does this project cover territories that were British as of 1980(i.e. Hong Kong), or not? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused now also. my understanding is it does not cover Hong Kong, now (having looked in more detail, it seems it does)
Note: These colonies are now independent, but since 1980+ is considered 'contemporary', they are included in this project's scope.

• Southern Rhodesia (1980)
• Antigua and Barbuda (1981)
• Belize (1981)
• Saint Kitts and Nevis (1983)
• Brunei (1984)
• Hong Kong (1997)

I reverted my edit, since it wasn't helping. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what the scope of the project is. I looked around, and couldn't find anything on the scope of the project. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have rewritten the section again in full longhand and it should be clearer. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I also did some revision on that section. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

it seems to make sense now. A Guy into Books (talk) 07:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Good, thanks for the rewrite. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Hi for some reason the talk page of the article Hafsid dynasty indicates that it has been given a rating as part of this project. Is this a mistake? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Andy Auld (pilot) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion

I've improved sources, but more always helps. Important Falklands War squadron commander and successful pilot. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Should most if not all dependent or overseas territories have their own Lists of something in Foo for any lists on any specific topics or subjects? Discussion has been kick-started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lighthouses#Dependent/overseas territories. 219.76.24.210 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello folks, In May on on Women in Red's themes is Women from British Overseas Territories - the event page is here. Would be lovely to see you over there! Lajmmoore (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I recently expanded the article on the flag and coat of arms of the Pitcairn Islands; any additional help would be appreciated, especially in finding any sources that I've missed and assessing the changes I've made - ATeaAddict (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Ernest Shackleton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)