dertermenter wrote:

The first bit you are confused. States are not countries, states are counties here.

Does it matter about being a citizen? We are still a country and the UK is NOT a country. I know a big point you seem to be saying is that we are not completely independent but Palestine is on the list and that isn't independant.

LukeManiaStudios wrote:

I just read everyone's comments but nevertheless. Even if the technicalities are sceptical, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Island are still different regions with different backgrounds and should be treated as such. “United Kingdom” is a blanket term and does not account for the fact that “English Person” ≠ “Welsh Person”

fdreerf wrote:

LukeManiaStudios wrote:

I just read everyone's comments but nevertheless. Even if the technicalities are sceptical, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Island are still different regions with different backgrounds and should be treated as such. “United Kingdom” is a blanket term and does not account for the fact that “English Person” ≠ “Welsh Person”

Should we split up every other country with multiple ethnicities? If so, we'll have way more sub-Saharan nations.

LukeManiaStudios wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

LukeManiaStudios wrote:

I just read everyone's comments but nevertheless. Even if the technicalities are sceptical, Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Island are still different regions with different backgrounds and should be treated as such. “United Kingdom” is a blanket term and does not account for the fact that “English Person” ≠ “Welsh Person”

Should we split up every other country with multiple ethnicities? If so, we'll have way more sub-Saharan nations.

Why not?

fdreerf wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

The first bit you are confused. States are not countries, states are counties here.

States and countries are synonymous. I am not confused.

Does it matter about being a citizen? We are still a country and the UK is NOT a country. I know a big point you seem to be saying is that we are not completely independent but Palestine is on the list and that isn't independent.

Palestine is legally independent by the UN and is recognized by 138 members. Scotland is recognized by 0.

dertermenter wrote:

counties mean states in the UK, states is not synonymous of countries

I did not know about the Palestine thing, but if we want to shorten everything shouldn't Jamacia and the others just be ‘carriben islands’

I do agree though that Isle of Man and Isle of wright shouldn't be there as they are owned by England, but does that mean Greenland should not be on the list as it is owned by Denmark?

fdreerf wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

counties mean states in the UK, states is not synonymous of countries

I did not know about the Palestine thing, but if we want to shorten everything shouldn't Jamacia and the others just be ‘carriben islands’

I never said anything about “shortening” anything. I'm saying that the list should only include nations that are legally independent in some way. Cuba and Jamaica are completely separate.

I do agree though that Isle of Man and Isle of wright shouldn't be there as they are owned by England, but does that mean Greenland should not be on the list as it is owned by Denmark?

I can get behind that.

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

I'm sorry for being too American, but isn't the UK one country?

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

And? Still seperate

By this logic, each state in the U.S. should be separate as they have their own separate powers, governments, taxes, etc. In every international organization, there is only a “United Kingdom”, not four entities taking its place.

US law is different from UK law.
We have separate history, separate capitals, separate flags, separate ministers.
How much more evidence do you want.

We are not one nation.

Actually states are like that too
Not trying to be rude, but I'm just confused

Isn't this the kind of thing that you would put in your about me if it matters to you that much?
I guess I'm fine with this if this happens:

pandacorn_owl wrote:

UK should still be an option. I think a better comparison than to Scandinavia would be terrortories. We have an option for all the terrortories of the UK, Us etc. so we could ahve an option for countries withing are country. I personally identify as British before English though and would much rather put Uk. Also most websites have UK as an option rather than all the british countries

But also locations in scratch are based off of the ISO 3166-1 encoding list of countries.

UK - Group of countries
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales: The actual countries

But then why is the UK one country under the UN and literally any list of countries?

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

I'm sorry for being too American, but isn't the UK one country?

No we are different nations.
Do you class Scandinavia as a country.

As the name suggests we are united kingdoms.
It's not even that old.
James I or James VI if you're Scottish came up with it.
A group of nations. Not one.

No, but Scandinavia isn’t anything like the UK. Scandinavia is three sovereign nations with no combined government. The UK is four countries with a combined government. Maybe the analogy you’re looking for is Denmark, which is made up of semi-autonomous “countries” (Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and Denmark itself.

Also, as I said before, if the location list is based off of ISO 3166-1, then this won’t happen.

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

I'm sorry for being too American, but isn't the UK one country?

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

fdreerf wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

And? Still seperate

By this logic, each state in the U.S. should be separate as they have their own separate powers, governments, taxes, etc. In every international organization, there is only a “United Kingdom”, not four entities taking its place.

US law is different from UK law.
We have separate history, separate capitals, separate flags, separate ministers.
How much more evidence do you want.

We are not one nation.

Actually states are like that too
Not trying to be rude, but I'm just confused

Isn't this the kind of thing that you would put in your about me if it matters to you that much?
I guess I'm fine with this if this happens:

pandacorn_owl wrote:

UK should still be an option. I think a better comparison than to Scandinavia would be terrortories. We have an option for all the terrortories of the UK, Us etc. so we could ahve an option for countries withing are country. I personally identify as British before English though and would much rather put Uk. Also most websites have UK as an option rather than all the british countries

But also locations in scratch are based off of the ISO 3166-1 encoding list of countries.

UK - Group of countries
England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales: The actual countries

But then why is the UK one country under the UN and literally any list of countries?

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

ScratchCatHELLO wrote:

I'm sorry for being too American, but isn't the UK one country?

No we are different nations.
Do you class Scandinavia as a country.

As the name suggests we are united kingdoms.
It's not even that old.
James I or James VI if you're Scottish came up with it.
A group of nations. Not one.

No, but Scandinavia isn’t anything like the UK. Scandinavia is three sovereign nations with no combined government. The UK is four countries with a combined government. Maybe the analogy you’re looking for is Denmark, which is made up of semi-autonomous “countries” (Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and Denmark itself.

Also, as I said before, if the location list is based off of ISO 3166-1, then this won’t happen.

Bump because nobody has responded to this

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

Well they should or I will write a petition.

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

Well they should or I will write a petition.

They have no control over the ISO 3166-1 list and would have to contact them about making changes, but that's very unlikely to happen.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

Well they should or I will write a petition.

They have no control over the ISO 3166-1 list and would have to contact them about making changes, but that's very unlikely to happen.

We will use our own. I will also be having a word to the creators of the list about respect and individuality.

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

Well they should or I will write a petition.

They have no control over the ISO 3166-1 list and would have to contact them about making changes, but that's very unlikely to happen.

We will use our own. I will also be having a word to the creators of the list about respect and individuality.

You can't just have a word with people from an international organization, I think your ambitions are way too high.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

They have no control over the ISO 3166-1 list and would have to contact them about making changes, but that's very unlikely to happen.

We will use our own. I will also be having a word to the creators of the list about respect and individuality.

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

Well they should or I will write a petition.

They have no control over the ISO 3166-1 list and would have to contact them about making changes, but that's very unlikely to happen.

We will use our own. I will also be having a word to the creators of the list about respect and individuality.

You can't just have a word with people from an international organization, I think your ambitions are way too high.

I can. I am the sort of person who demands respect.
Now can we please get back on topic.

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

-EmeraldThunder- wrote:

pavcato wrote:

dertermenter wrote:

-extreme snip-
2. Maybe they can change the list, or at least modify it?

I don't think they can change an widely recognized list that hasn't been changed since August 2020.

Well they should or I will write a petition.

They have no control over the ISO 3166-1 list and would have to contact them about making changes, but that's very unlikely to happen.

We will use our own. I will also be having a word to the creators of the list about respect and individuality.

You can't just have a word with people from an international organization, I think your ambitions are way too high.

I can. I am the sort of person who demands respect.
Now can we please get back on topic.

No, you can't, saying “I demand respect” doesn't mean you automatically get to change international standards.