From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Archived discussions

Photo of witchdoctor[edit]

It's a great photo, but I thought our policies forbade portrait photos of identifiable people (as opposed to photos of sights which happen to have some people in them). What, anyway, is Commons' policy toward portrait photos without apparent evidence of a model release? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Image policy only requests that we not include snapshots of tourists posing in front of landmarks and the like. It also links to commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, which is the guideline for which you asked. LtPowers (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, LtPowers. So I guess the photo was judged to have been taken in a public place, and therefore not requiring that consent from the subject be documented. Is that how you would understand it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, though it's not clear whether that particular photo has been examined by the community at large... so it could just be a photo that no one's noticed should be deleted. The page I linked doesn't have information on Zimbabwe's privacy laws. LtPowers (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
It was a Picture of the Day on Wikimedia Commons (8 Feb 2008) and on the French Wikipedia (21 Feb 2010). AHeneen (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I saw all of that, but I didn't see a model release or any other documentation of consent. It appears to be freely posed, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
That seems to be enough for most, in the absence of specific information on Zimbabwean laws. LtPowers (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unclear paragraph in History[edit]

The last pargraph in the history section is so unclear that I can't fix it.

The discovery of valuable natural resources such as oil, uranium, diamonds, and coltan, has produced numerous independence movements post-independence citing the taking value of resources from their land to benefit the entire country (notably tiny, oil-rich Cabinda in Angola). Fortunately, there are numerous examples in Africa where past conflict has made way for functional governments, offering some hope for the future of African self-government.

If anyone has an idea of what is is supposed to mean, please fix. Cheers,• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll handle it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Much better thanks. Now all it needs is a link to WP to explain coltan, but of course we can't do that... Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Knowing it's a valuable natural resource is sufficient; if I want to read an encyclopedia article on the topic, I'll search an encyclopedia. LtPowers (talk) 14:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Knowing that is not a typo is also useful. I had never heard of it, and I think I am a bit better than average informed on geology and technology in general. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I inserted a brief explanation of coltan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Link to WP[edit]

In the Read section there is an in-line link to the article on Ibn Battuta on Wikipedia. My personal view is that this is a good thing, but my understanding of the policy is that it is not permitted. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Lagos instead of Luanda[edit]

I really think a Nigerian city should be on the list of "Cities", and Lagos in the obvious choice. Nigeria is one of the largest economies in Africa and is currently booming, despite corruption. Lagos is also the largest city in terms of administrative area. I'd probably say to remove Luanda, as it's not a hugely well-known city or common tourist destination, even if it is undergoing a recent renaissance. JamesA >talk 03:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Nigeria is the most populous country on the continent. Yes, I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That would mean three West African cities and no Central African cities, though. It's kind of a shame already that we don't have a Sahel city, but the obvious choice of Bamako is kind of spoiled by the recent insanity there. Would you swap Accra out for Lagos? Accra is a pretty liveable place, and a good base for exploring the broader region, while Lagos is widely regarded as a hellhole that no one would ever want to go to. Any Lagosians I've met have assured me that anyone who isn't from the city itself (so they're including other Nigerians) will just be instantly assaulted and robbed if they try to walk down any old street... Do we take these things into consideration? We also leave off Kinshasa currently, which is in Central Africa and is getting to be almost as big as Lagos, but is reputed to be utterly miserable. --Peter Talk 03:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It's a difficult choice, and all the points you bring up are worthy ones. What we include on these sorts of lists does seem to come down to a few things:
  • Population - Lagos clearly takes the pie
  • Tourist appeal - Of course Lagos may not have much, but does any other of the contenders? This includes safety.
  • Logistics - Connecting flights, trains, embassies, international importance, etc
  • Geographical location - We don't want too many cities in West Africa.
And maybe I've missed some others, but could we use that sort of criteria to decide whether Lagos gets the cut, or is at least more relevant than some of the other cities on the list? JamesA >talk 04:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If we were making a list of 9 large and important African cities, then Lagos would be there, but I still hold my position from the previous discussion about this that a city known for nothing but crime and crumbling, unsafe buildings is not really a "Top 9" tourist destination. On our own West Africa article we describe this city as:

"the largest city in Nigeria and the second largest in the whole of Africa is a chaotic, violent, and generally terrifying, inhospitable place, an example of urban Africa at its worst." I don't believe "Africa at its worst" is really what we should be aiming for with our top 9 on the continental level. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is very convincing. Let's leave Lagos off this list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hold it: That description is not the same as the way the city is described in the Lagos article and, like common attitudes toward the Bronx among out-of-towners, may be dated. This is from Lagos#Stay safe:
"In general, Lagos has become a much safer place to visit than before, with the state spending huge budgets on security with police patrol cars, CCTV cameras. etc. But beware of deals or businesses that sound too good to be true (especially e-mails soliciting your help), and do not openly flaunt your possessions, especially in public places.
While it is rare for a tourist to be a victim of a violent crime, it is still wise to stay safe and be alert, especially during late night outings. Stick to crowded streets and make sure to go out in groups as against going out alone.
Lagosians are generally nice and friendly people, most of whom will readily offer directions to you if you are lost.
Lagos still has its fair share of odd people: street beggars(both the old and young), people with psychological disorders, etc. If someone approaches you for money, do what most Lagosians do: completely ignore them or continuing to walk at a brisk pace.
There are a few police officers who are corrupt and inefficient so it is best that you stick to the law and avoid going anywhere off the beaten path without a trusted guide, especially if it is a first visit."
And that's the entire section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
From the expats I've talked to who spend time there (most of my info is about a year out of date), it's a place where you don't get out of the car on the mainland, if you actually go there... and on the islands you still have to worry about organized gangs leading assaults upon your house/compound. Just offshore is one of the world's worst zones for piracy on the seas. The pollution and overcrowding are also supposed to be horrendous. It's known as one of the world's prime examples of a "failing megacity." The latest government reputedly is turning things around, but it's hard to imagine things have changed that much in just a couple years.
All the same, though, it is the biggest city in sub-Saharan Africa (possibly already the largest—the place is anarchic enough that estimates of the population have a range of about 6 million people), and Wikivoyage tells me it is slated to become the world's third largest urban area in the world by 2015, so it seems odd to leave it off. It's influence in African pop culture, particularly pop music, is also enormous. If putting it in, I'd say we should remove Dakar, despite the concerns above that Dakar is the only Francophone city on the list (that would change if we swap in Kinshasa).
Kinshasa, by the way, is the exact same question for our list. It's the number 2 example of a failing megacity in Africa, after Lagos, but were it not a hellhole, I'd say we should certainly replace Luanda with it as the rep for Central Africa. It is supposed to surpass Paris as the largest French speaking city in the world in less than a decade. Bamako is another similar case, but only because of the war—it was actually supposed to be pretty cool, and it's by far the biggest Sahelian city—and has been the fastest growing city in Africa for some time. --Peter Talk 13:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think Kinshasa is much more of a failure than Lagos! But what constitutes as a failed mega-city, and would that mean it's unworthy of listing? Most mega-cities fail in planning, such as Dhaka, Karachi, Kolkata, Manila, etc. I generally agree with your observations but am still fairly indifferent about what should be removed/added. JamesA >talk 14:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(Indent) Should a failed city be considered unworthy of listing as a top 9 on the continental level? Not necessarily, but it's a strong argument against it from the get-go. When it's a failed city with little to do, no tourist infrastructure (or tourists for the most part), described as "unsafe" in the mildest terms, and considered to be a "hellhole" by most standards then I definitely don't think it needs to be there. Does population trump ALL of that? If so, then we need to also make room for the great tourist city of Mogadishu. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, I think there are different extents to being a failed city. Lagos and Mogadishu are fairly different cities. Can Mogadishu even be called a city anymore, or is it more of a jumble of crumbling and collapsed buildings? JamesA >talk 03:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Lagos is, without a doubt, a notable city on the continent. The problem is whether it is noteworthy for this page. It's hard to talk about a city without having been there, but from all accounts I've ever read/seen, Lagos is one of the worst major cities on the continent. There's basically nothing there for tourists and even for business/NGO travelers, there is little of interest in the city. For tourists and most NGO workers, it is simply a dreaded-but-necessary waypoint at the beginning/end of a trip to connect to a flight or onward travel elsewhere in Nigeria or West Africa. Business travelers bode their time in secure locations. Really the only sight in the city is to experience how chaotic it is. Population shouldn't be a major consideration. To briefly quote Lonely Planet: "Lagos is chaos theory made flesh and concrete. It's the largest city in Africa, with wall-to-wall people, bumper-to-bumper cars, noise and pollution beyond belief, a crime rate out of control, and public utilities that are simply incapable of coping with the demands of the huge population. Elevated motorways ring the city, jammed with speed freaks and traffic jams...on top, and tin-and-cardboard shacks underneath." (Lonely Planet Africa, 11th ed., 2007)

However, an equally compelling reason to keep Lagos off the list is geographic diversity. West Africa is currently represented by two cities: Dakar & Accra. Dakar lies at the very heart and soul of francophone sub-Saharan Africa, which includes most of West and Central Africa. Accra is probably the most important city in West Africa for tourists...Ghana is a very friendly, easy destination for tourists to visit and is often called "Africa for beginners". Accra is perhaps the most important gateway city in West Africa. Both Dakar and Accra are about as equally important to business travelers as is Lagos. So, in my opinion, there is no compelling reason to add Lagos in place of either Dakar or Accra.

Now, of the remaining cities, the least compelling to keep on the list is Luanda. In all honesty, the only reason to keep Luanda on the list is geographic is the only city or OD for Central Africa (while West Africa is represented by Dakar and Accra). Replacing Luanda with Lagos would leave Central Africa without a city or OD on the Africa page. Every other region is represented by at least one listing among the two lists. It's rather hard to think of a compelling listing from Central Africa for either list, but Luanda was chosen for its status as a fast-growing, important city for business travelers. For tourists, however, a destination in Cameroon would probably be more noteworthy...either Douala or Yaounde.

  • Luanda - The recent oil cash has led to a huge growth spurt. The city is increasingly important for business travelers. Not much in the way of tourists, though, who are discouraged by high costs (it has been named as the most expensive city for expats for several years), including a lack of affordable accommodation and hotel rooms in general (a few years ago, it was almost impossible to get a hotel room without booking 9-12 months in advance, but I think this has relented a bit). Visa requirements make it difficult to visit and there's little in the way of tourism infrastructure. It's a modestly-important transportation hub, as home of TAAG Angola Airlines and the opening soon of a large, modern airport.
  • Kinshasa - Kinshasa faces a lot of the same problems as's grimy and unsafe. Kinshasa is also difficult to visit thanks to visa restrictions. There is at least some tourism sights/destinations, to offset those concerns, so it stands on equal footing as Luanda, IMO, to be listed.
  • Libreville - Another important business destination. Gateway to Gabon, which has been growing in popularity with tourists. Not sure that there's a lot to do or see, but, like Luanda, it's centered around a nice, long sea-side promenade. Easier to visit (regarding visas & tourism facilities) than Luanda or Kinshasa.
  • Douala- A bit grimy, although less-so than Kinshasa or Lagos (and on second thought, that atmosphere is representative of the region). It has good transport links with the region. It is also sees a large volume of tourists as it is the gateway to western Cameroon, the most visited portion of Cameroon (the Ring Road, Mt Cameroon, beaches), which in turn is the most visited country in Central Africa. There's practically no tourist destinations, but its gateway status for tourism and volume of business travel make it worthy of being featured as the destination from Central Africa.

An alternative would be adding a Central African OD...Mount Cameroon (Cameroon), Loango National Park (Gabon), Lope National Park (Gabon), Dzanga Sangha National Reserve (CAR; part of a group of adjacent protected areas...also incl: Lobéké National Park in Cameroon, Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in Congo-Brazzaville, and Dzanga-Ndoki National Park also in the CAR...perhaps a page could be created for the region?), or Virunga National Park (DRC). The least worthy OD listing would be Nairobi National Park, given nearby Serengeti/Maasai Mara National Parks & Mount Kilimanjaro being listed.

So, with regards to a listing from Central Africa, my choices would be: 1) Douala, 2) Kinshasa, 3) Libreville, & 4) Luanda, therefore suggesting we replace Luanda with Douala rather than Lagos. If anyone really feels strongly about Lagos, the alternative would be swapping one of the above listed parks for Nairobi NP in the OD list. AHeneen (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds pretty convincing to me. I guess we can leave Lagos out until they've cleaned it up or Nigeria etches itself up the tourist list. I've never heard of Douala, and I must say I am pretty switched on when it comes to cities and geography. We'd want the top 9 cities for such a large continent to be somewhat recognisable, but don't let that stop it if people disagree. I'd say go ahead and swap out Nairobi NP for a Central African destination. JamesA >talk 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
There are currently ten other destinations so two will need to be removed if you're adding a Central African destination. LtPowers (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Nairobi NP had crept in quietly, but was not part of our list agreed upon above, so I have removed it. --Peter Talk 15:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, for the ODs, Virunga would be redundant with Volcanoes NP (which is a lot more important), and I think the Cameroonian ones are pretty obscure. For what it's worth, the only one I'd be willing to kill to go to (or be killed while going there?) would be Garamba National Park. This would be moot if Rwanda and Burundi were still in our Central Africa region, and they do look really weird to me in East Africa. --Peter Talk 15:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a need to add an OD from Central Africa. Personally, of the cities, I'd prefer to stick with Luanda. While Cameroon seems to have a good reputation among the well-traveled in Africa, individual cities and sites don't seem to stand out and as JamesA proves above are not very well-known by the average person. As a country capital, those with basic geography knowledge will at least have heard of Luanda and Luanda does appear to have more to offer than most of the cities mentioned. African cities are admittedly mostly modern, so unlike Europe the historic and cultural attractions are mostly elsewhere, but Luanda at least has a few legitimate tourist spots. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. So that means no changes are required. I guess all of this has simply been a learning exercise for all. JamesA >talk 10:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian Ocean Islands[edit]

Are these considered part of Africa? They are not apparent in the region secion. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Mauritius is listed as in East Africa, but the map has a separate region for the Islands. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, & the Seychelles are all listed as part of East Africa in the region section, map (where only Madagascar is big enough to be seen in red, like rest of E. Africa), and on the East Africa page. There was some discussion about separating them in discussions above, but no action was taken. AHeneen (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Too much flight detail?[edit]

I noticed that the Africa#Get_in is extreemly long, detailing a lot of connections between main African cities and the rest of the world.

In comparison, Europe#Get_in is just a paragraph and South_America#Get_in give a paragraph to every continent.

The problem I have with this much detail is that invariably is it going to go out of date soon, and up to the date information should be kept at country level. Stating every African destination of Lufthansa is actually going to misinform the traveler whenever that airline add or removes routes.

Is it OK to merge this information down where required? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine. At the continent level it should be sufficient to make clear what the primary international airports are, but individual flight detail seems excessive. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Given the ammount of effort put into this, I put the content into a 'travel topic', which is still referenced from the section. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much South Africa?[edit]

I think that Africa#Cities and Africa#Other destinations is ridiculously heavily weighted toward South Africa. Granted SA is one of, if not the safest and easiest African country for tourists to visit, and Cape Town and Johannesburg are certainly among the largest and most important cities on the continent. But including both of them in the "Cities" subsection fails the test of geographic diversity - especially given that we have Kruger National Park as part of "Other destinations". Africa has no fewer than 52 countries, and I see in a comment thread above that there's a great deal of competition for representation on the "Cities" section, and how best to use it to reflect the identity of Africa as a whole. Given that, I think that in the case of Cape Town and Johannesburg we need to choose one or the other, not both. Thoughts? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree, though as a side point, I wasn't under the impression that South Africa was that safe. Don't they have a very high crime rate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ikan - To answer your question re: safety: by comparison with developed countries, yes; by African standards, I suspect (though anyone who'd like to correct me is welcome to) that its place in the rankings is quite different. Anyway, I was referring more to the quality of tourist infrastructure than to crime. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
As to the inevitable question of what we should replace the rejected South African city with, it's been noted in earlier discussions that the Sahel is the only region that's not represented at all on Africa#Cities. Bamako was floated as a possible contender; has the security situation in Mali stabilized enough that we're comfortable placing it on the list? If not, how about two-time former OtBP Niamey? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cape Town is one of the top destinations in the world for tourism, and while Johannesburg does have a few things to recommend it, it is not as popular as its neighbor to the west and thus would be my recommendation for removal if we're choosing between the two. Kruger National Park is a highlight of Africa for many people, and thus I'd suggest leaving it in the Other destinations list. Regarding safety, Cape Town and the Western Cape are very safe, Kruger is very safe, and parts of Johannesburg are fine (although other parts of Johannesburg are very much to be avoided). -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Ryan. Some weight needs to be given to the volume of tourist traffic South Africa sees by comparison to other African countries, so I'd be happy retaining Kruger along with Cape Town (and, for that matter, Cairo along with Valley of the Kings). But I think 3 out of 18 for South Africa is definitely overkill. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


This article seems to be a little bit inconsistent as to whether to use British or American English. As some African countries have made British spelling more or less official, but in others there is hardly anyone speaking English, I can see the argument for either side. As I was already criticized elsewhere for inadvertently using the "wrong" spelling, I would like to have a consensus, before anybody moves forward and decolonizes or rather decolonises this article or rather its spelling. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, seems fairly obvious considering most of the English speaking countries were British colonies .... Similar to it making sense for American English to be used for South American articles considering the 'cultural influence there. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, "Cairo to Cape Town" used to be ruled by the British, so I'd say we should use the British variant in the Africa article. Though I really don't have a problem if someone would prefer the American variant.
Ps. luckily a certain hardcore fan of commonwealth spelling in all articles and some other "interesting" choices concerning formatting isn't around any longer. Otherwise Hobbit's talk page would be littered with messages in all caps. ;) ϒpsilon (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I sure seem to have dodged a bullet there. In case you are wondering about my nickname: "Schuster" is the German term for shoemaker. Something a Hobbit won't need. I hope my edits are less of an exercise in futility than my name might suggest ;-). Anyway. If anybody would care to change all spellings to British in this article, as we seem to have agreed on? Or do we need some more debate? Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it's most important to have consistency within the article, but if it's a choice between British/Commonwealth and US spellings, it's clear which one should win in this case, for the reasons mentioned above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


There are no pictures for much of the understand section which is already mostly text (some of it quite boring to people who are uniterested in history and politics). Do you have good suggestions for pictures? Also; is the text too contradictory in at the same time asserting that things aren't as bad as you might have heard and at the other time pointing out that in some places things are actually worse? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I see seven images in the Understand section. Is that not enough? Powers (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are absolutely enough images in that section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the rather lengthy climate (which should be rewritten for SEO purposes) and politics subsections. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't hurt to add a picture or two, I guess, but I don't know that it's necessary. Maybe move one from elsewhere in the article. Powers (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, please have a look at one of the comparison sites and if you have the time and are up to it reformulate our prose for SEO purposes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I pretty much agree with Powers on pictures. A few more could be added if you feel like doing so, or you could move them around for more nearly even distribution. I'd support your ideas on edits, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Sprucing up blurbs[edit]

The blurbs (prior to my recent attempt at editing them) have not been edited since the migration and some of them are just - I have to say it - bad. I would very much welcome any attempt to make them better. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks a lot for working on this. I made a few more edits. See what you think of them and please continue making improvements as the inspiration hits you! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the blurbs for the "cities" and (some of) the "other destinations are another group of (potentially) low hanging fruits, but unfortunately I know next to nothing about those places... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have yet to visit any part of Africa, so I'm not the ideal person to try to formulate good intros for those sections, either. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed region: East African islands[edit]

East Africa currently contains 16 countries and territories; a bit too many for one region. Six of those are islands in the Indian Ocean: Madagascar, Seychelles, Comoros, Mayotte, Mauritius and Réunion. They are distinct in geography and culture from continental East Africa; so the East African islands would be an appropriate region of Africa; Africa would then consist of seven regions, and East Africa would consist of ten countries/territories. /Yvwv (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I see good reasons to do this and none against it. You have my support. But ultimately the region article should be more than just an empty outline... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
My main objection would be that the islands Continental Section would be very small geographically, even if it did contain six countries. Powers (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Not all that small. It would contain one of the world's largest islands. The rest of the islands are way smaller. But perhaps it can't be helped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it would be larger by land area than some of the regions of Europe Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That goes for population as well. /Yvwv (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Your points are well made. I'd say go ahead and make the change, but I don't think we have enough support for a consensus over one person's objection, depending on how strongly the objection is held. Do you still object, Powers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll add my voice on the "yes" side. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems like the proposal has enough support. The maps of Africa and East Africa need to be redone anyway, since Somaliland is now categorized as a country. /Yvwv (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)