This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

British Overseas Territories This page is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories United Kingdom This page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.html

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bird Island, South Georgia#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British people has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan da Cunha has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]