Talk:The World Factbook
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
edit |
Archives |
Contents |
[edit] Long section
The Oddities and controversies section seems rather long. Should it be shortened? RJFJR 15:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on it. Since my last edit, i've removed the Isle of Man and trimmed the Yugoslavia part a bit. - Thanks, Hoshie 00:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 edition
It should be noted that the 2007 version caved in to Gaullist fiction by deleting the French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, and Réunion entries and putting their information in the "France" page. —71.215.217.161 02:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to work on this soon with a little less POV. - Thanks, Hoshie 03:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Link audit
I have just done a clearing of links. Here we go:
The GPO links are good, but I don't think it's good to have a dupe set of links to previous versions isn't helpful.
To me, these links:
- On stephansmap.org: The CIA World Factbook accessible by location and date range; covers the years 2001 -- 2006. All Factbook entries are tagged with "cia". Requires graphical browser with javascript.
The idea of integrating the Factbook into stephansmap.org was to provide a different way of reading the Factbook -- first by selecting region, then by selecting a time-frame. That's why I added the link to the wikipedia article. I still think it is an interesting presentation. (And not spam) I'll leave it to someone else to put the link back on the wikipedia page though. Stephanwehner
- CIA World Factbook as Flash factbook site
seem to be Spam. They look interesting but they don't add to the article.
As for this link:
- Authorama 2000 CIA World Factbook as XHTML1.0 (easily readable, no images, device-independent)
We already have a "device friendly" that's current. Why do we need an older one?
- Thanks, Hoshie 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article nomination
Passed. Congratulations. :) I can't think of many ways to improve the article itself--It's really good as it is. One thing that you should consider addressing is the redlinks. It's not part of the article itself and I'm not faulting you for that, but it doesn't look good when there's a number of redlinks for organizations for which there is no article. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)