Talk:Exclave

Dubrovnik?

Is this really an enclave? Its own article never mentions that, and its map makes it look like an island.

O.K, I know it's been two years probably since this question was asked but it looks like nobody has answered it. I hope that the anon. editor is still with us, and alive and well! The city of Dubrovnik is the principle city in what we call the Dubrovnik-Neretva Općina (district/borough etc). Now because of the fact that the independent Bosnia & Hercegovina (also ex Yugoslavia) was given some 10km or so access to the Adriatic, based on the municipality of a coastal town called Neum, Croatia is seperated with Dubrovnik being isolated. I'm from Dubrovnik and it's probably more fair to say that people of Dubrovnik have stronger cultural ties with those from Trebinje (Bosnia) and Montenegro than with Croatians living in Osijek or Istra. Anyhow, Neum was part of an independent Bosnia even before the creation of Yugoslavia. It was returned to Bosnia when it became recognised as a constituent republic in Yugoslavia when it was recreated at the end of World War 2. Ragusan 11-feb-06

I can see where the earlier writer's confusion came from: the first map is much too small to show the separation, and the second map shows the position of Dubrovnik within the old Republic (before 1808) rather than within today's Croatia. The gap is quite obvious in my National Geographic Atlas. —Tamfang 23:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaves or not?

Alaska

Does Alaska count as an exclave of the United States? RickK | Talk 23:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, according to the list on Country. fabiform | talk 23:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Gibralter is different from other enclaves and I don't think it should count as one. It belongs to the UK, but it isn't PART of the UK, it's a dependency. Compare with Alaska, which has the same status as any other US state, or Mellila, Ceuta which are considered to be integral parts of the Spanish state. Kappa 02:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

P.S. How about French Guiana, which is "an integral part of France"?

Southeast Asia

Is this serious? On Borneo, is East Malaysia an exclave of Malaysia because of Kalimantan (and Brunei), or is Kalimantan an exclave of Indonesia because of East Malaysia? Perhaps they surround each other? Is Brunei an enclave or two, or one or both parts an exclave? How can you judge when the sea is involved? --Henrygb 22:21, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Subnational exclaves

Just a thought, but shouldn't the examples which are within the US be in the list of subnational exclaves, rather than in the main list? Vashti 18:05, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the lists seem like kind of a mess. Not sure if true vs. practical, national vs. subnational are really that easy to work with for editors. Or so it would seem, given the fact that US states appear in 3 of the 4 categories. —rodii 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland?

Northern Ireland is a territory that belongs to the United Kingdom but is not connected to the UK Mainland by land. Other than its coastline, it is surrounded by The Irish Republic, a seperate political entitiy. Shall we include it in the list?

As Northern Ireland is part of the island of Ireland and that islands are not normally considered exclaves (See the first paragraph of the article), it should not be listed. Shocktm (Talk * Contributions) 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as Ceuta and Melilla are a part of Spain and I therefore believe if the latter are to be considered exclaves of Spain then the former should be considered an exclave of the UK. It is not a whole island that is off the coast from the mainland (as are the Shetlands, Anglesey and the Isle of White etc.), rather, it is part of an island which has borders with another country, and is therefore an exclave. 129.67.162.10 (talk) 01:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martín García

I take it from the above that the following, quoted from "Argentina" is also wrong?

There is one Argentine exclave: the island of Martín García (co-ordinates 34°11′ S 58°15′ W). It is situated near the confluence of the Paraná and Uruguay rivers, a mere kilometre inside Uruguayan waters, about 3.5 km from the Uruguayan coastline, near the small city of Martín Chico (itself about halfway between Nueva Palmira and Colonia).

--Brian Z 03:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to User_talk:Argentino, the water surrounding Martín García is Urugayan. Maybe that would mean it is an exclave, even though its an island? --Brian Z 15:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

West Berlin?

I suppose West Berlin is not here because it was not technically a part of West Germany? Astrokey44 09:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct West Berlin was not an encalve/exclave as it was not part of West Germany but it did have enclaves such as Steinstücken, which was part of West Perlin but surronded by East Germany. Shocktm | Talk | Contributions 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

I suggest that the articles enclave and exclave be merged into one another. Having two separate articles for these two sides of the same story makes as much sense as having separate articles for immigration and emigration - it's the same phenomenon, just described from opposing angles. Much like "here" is actually "there" if described from "there" and vice versa. Actually, the content of the immigration and emigration articles differs, while these two don't. Hm… Any thoughts? =I //Big Adamsky 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joining the earlier section on the same idea back in:

Merge with Enclave?

Is there really enough of a distinction between enclave and exclave to merit two separate articles? The enclave article discusses practical enclaves, coastal countries, coastal fragments, and subnational enclaves. Since there can also exist practical exclaves and subnational exclaves, and since coastal fragments are probably exclaves but not enclaves, it's all looking like an arbitrary division. I think a single article, defining both terms in the intro, and then enumerating and distinguishing subtypes, would be more natural than trying to fence the two terms off. All the external linked sites discuss both terms together. cf Acronym and initialism. Joestynes 09:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, what's an enclave from one point of view has to be an exclave from another, and vice versa, and this still applies if an exclave happens to be an enclave in more then one entity, geographically that's no different from bordering a state and say the ocean. Fastifex 10:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually makes the point that not all exclaves are enclaves. I'm undecided about whether this is distinction with a difference, but at least one editor thinks so. —rodii 18:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See main discussion at Talk:Enclave.

Delaware

I believe that Delaware has at least one bit of land on the New Jersey side of the estuary; can someone who knows details add it to the "practical subnational exclaves" section? —Tamfang 22:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google maps, that is correct--http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=dover,+delaware&ll=39.582407,-75.4953&spn=0.342924,0.894012

Stubblyhead 23:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting word, didn´t know of it´s existance until today, so what about Mbini, is that an exclave of Equatorial Guinea, when the capital Malabo is located on an island? RGDS Alexmcfire

Practical Exclaves

I don't understand why Point Roberts, WA and the Northwest Angle are listed here. They both meet all the characteristics of an exclave. Neither is any more connected to the rest of US than Cabinda is to Angola. The same could be said for the subnational pracital exclave. Can anyone shed some light on this distinction? Stubblyhead 23:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are connected to the rest of the US through US Territorial Water so they are not real exclaves. ((Shocktm | Talk | Contributions)) 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas Cabinda is separated by a corridor of Congo territorial water. —Tamfang 00:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentreheyling

Just out of interest, Pentreheyling is a practical exclave - it is part of Shrophire in England, but can only reached by roads passing through Wales - see [1] I'm no expert on these things though - I just noticed the unusual edit summary - feel free to include it or not at your discretion! Aquilina 20:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ooh, good point! But is it really worth a mention? It looks to me like a hamlet - hence why i couldnt find much about it on t'interweb. Also, it's not technically an exclave, is it? It can still be reached by foot. Discuss?

HawkerTyphoon 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure, it's not a true exclave - but it is a practical exclave (quote from the definition - ...because the only road available enters that foreign place before coming back to the mother country) so it could go in that corresponding section.

I'm not hugely fussed whether it goes in or not - I've never even had an interest in exclaves before, my interest was piqued by your edit summary and I started researching from there! However, seeing as the only examples in that section so far are from North America, I might lean gently towards a bit of British involvement in the article - with the correct spelling this time of course! I suppose we could use the link to the map given above too... Aquilina 23:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal exclaves?

Coincidentally, a few days ago, I found that the City of Waco, Texas has an exclave. The to get to the part of Waco that contains Texas State Technical College and the L-3 Communications facility (where President Bush lands when visiting his ranch), you have to leave the rest (larger part) of Waco (generally going through the city of Bellmead). Should this be mentioned? Or are municipal exclaves a dime a dozen, not warranting individual mention? MrVoluntarist 22:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may not actually be a true exclave, but a flagpole annexation, i.e. the portion of the city you describe may actually be connected to the rest of Waco by a long, narrow strip along a road or other right-of-way. I don't know what the law in Texas is, but I believe that some states do not allow exclaves - an annexation must be connected to the existing city. Even if municipal exclaves are a dime a dozen, I think they should be mentioned. If the list becomes too long, a separate article can be created. Denvoran 23:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you may be right. According to this map [2], if you look in the top right, there is a thin strip along a railroad, then back along a road and into the annexed territory. Since this involves a change in means of transportation (and getting off where the train doesn't stop), would it qualify for the "practical exclave" section? MrVoluntarist 23:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A dime a dozen is too right, alas--in the US many municipalities are riddled with "township islands" and similar things--areas that for some reason were never included in the city or town proper, making them exclaves of the surrounding governmental units. There are literally dozens in my mid-sized town. How far do you want to take this? · rodii · 04:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just asking, dude, that's what the talk page is for. I didn't make the "practical exclave" section. Chill-ax. What I was saying above that made Waco's flagpole annexation different was that it's not connected a set of roads you can drive through. In fact, it is impractical to travel by any vehicle from the bigger part of Waco to the annex. Is it common for a flagpole annex to be connected by strip that switches from a railroad to a road? If so, yes, this is a dime a dozen. MrVoluntarist 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Are you hearing that as an attack on you? I think you raised an interesting question, and as I thought about it I started to realize that applying the whole "exclave" idea on a municipal level gets really, really complicated. My comment is directed more at Denvoran's comment than yours, in fact. I'm just talking, dude, that's what the talk page is for. (· rodii ·--forgot to sign earlier)

When you said "how far do you want to take this" (if that was you, your post is unsigned), it sounded like you were irritated somehow that I was suggesting municipal exclaves or practical municipal exclaves. I wasn't trying to push a view, but merely asking. Your post sounded as if I was trying to insert inappropriate material, when I was doing exactly what one is supposed to to about questionable insertions: talk about it on the talk page! MrVoluntarist 19:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I forgot to sign. My question was exactly that--a question. How do you (that is, the editors) want to take the idea of exclaves? Because once we start getting down to the municipal level, maybe it starts to look more like "quantum foam" than nice orderly boundaries. I wasn't "irritated" and in fact paid your comment very little attention; as I indicated, I was replying to a comment father up in the thread. If you can't handle a content question without worrying that it's personal, maybe you need to get some fresh air or something. · rodii · 21:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You alleged I was "trying to take this far". You seemed irritated and incivil. Of course questions don't bother me. Implications that I'm "trying to take this" to places it doesn't belong are unwarranted. 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last contribution to this insipid argument. I didn't "allege you were trying to take this too far." My exact words were "How far do you want to take this?" meaning what should be the limit of detail the article should try to accommodate. I did not use or imply the word "too," and, for the third time, my comment wasn't directed at you, but to the person above you. I apologize for the misformatting--I struggled with how best to mak it clear who I was tlking to without disrupting the exchange you were already having. The indentation syntax is a little clumsy in this regard. I'm sorry that I seemed to you to be irritated and uncivil--but that's your interpretation of my tone. I regret that you heard it that way, but I'm not responsible. I will admit I'm irritated now, though. Feel free to post any more whiny justifications for your insecurity on my talk page, but I promise you they will be ignored. · rodii · 23:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really need to read the section on Be civil. I've never seen someone get this worked up in a discussion of exclaves. Two words: chill-ax. Well, maybe two words merged into one non-word. MrVoluntarist 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vol, you misunderstood Rodii's question as a personal assault, and then refused to let it go after the clarification. If Rodii got a bit peevish after three rounds of that, it's hardly surprising. —Tamfang 01:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodii got belligerent after my first (eminently reasonable) response to him, not after "three rounds" -- not that that would justify it anyway. I "refused to let it go" only in the sense that I wanted to explain to him why he was misinterpreted. Or would you prefer we not learn when the things we say could be taken the wrong way? Well, that would make sense, because Rodii is never wrong. Nor you! I'm the idiot who's stupid enough to dicuss a topic before making changes. MrVoluntarist 01:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, Rodii got peevish ("belligerent" is hyperbole) after the second time you said his question could be read as a personal attack on you, not the third. Since Rodii has already said more than once that the "offensive" question was meant for Denvoran, not you, it's absurd to moan that you're being attacked for "discuss[ing] a topic before making changes" (unless I misunderstand what changes you have in mind). I don't know enough to say whether you or Rodii are consistently right or wrong in other matters. (Your arguments on anarchocapitalism could be improved, imho, but that's my opinion of most people including me.) —Tamfang 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive criticism is well and good but it would be more palatable if coupled with an acknowledgement of your own mistake. —Tamfang 19:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fork, why?

In 2006, it was noted that Enclave and Exclave largely repeated each other, so I merged them to Enclave and exclave (with redirects), moving most of the examples into List of enclaves and exclaves. That move was uncontroversial at the time. Why has someone now re-forked Exclave? Have any of the recent editors compared new content to the existing content of the other pages? —Tamfang (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize some entries (Kentucky Bend and Sandoval County) as my own writing! —Tamfang (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFO

This forked article contains only one item that's not already in List of enclaves and exclaves, and that one is wrong:

San Francisco International Airport is also part of an exclave, located 6 miles (10 km) south of San Francisco proper in San Mateo County, but considered a part of the city.

The airport is San Francisco's property but not its territory. It lies in San Mateo County, with a couple of bits on its edges in the cities of South San Francisco and Millbrae, according to a Thomas Bros map. —Tamfang (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

with obsession all articles are possible

This has been classified as a "redirect with possibilities" of being expanded to a real article. The result would be a restoration of the repetitions that motivated me to merge Exclave and Enclave into Enclave and exclave all these years ago! —Tamfang (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]