213-207

You said: I'm not actually sure why we included New Caledonia, Northern Cyprus or the Faroe Islands.

Copilot said: Quite right to question it — those three are edge‑cases that only creep into global‑film projects when someone is using “broad political/territorial entities” rather than sovereign states. Given your project’s structure (the full 213‑entity list you’re using), here’s why they ended up on the list — and why it's perfectly reasonable to rethink them.

Why these got included in the 213, but don’t feel intuitively right

1. Faroe Islands
Why they appear on expanded lists:
They’re an autonomous territory of Denmark, culturally distinct, and they do produce local cinema (mostly shorts and documentaries). Some list-makers who aim for “maximum granularity” include every region with a separate ISO code, film institute, or national team in international competitions.

Why they might feel odd:
They’re not a sovereign country, and the film tradition is tiny compared with even small independent nations. If your goal is cultural breadth, they belong. If your goal is sovereign states, they don’t.

Bottom line: defensible either way.

2. New Caledonia
Why they appear on big lists:
They’re a French Overseas Territory with their own cultural institutions, a Kanak identity, and ISO recognition. People who try to include every self-governing territory end up adding places like Guam, Martinique, Réunion, New Caledonia, etc.

Why it feels arbitrary:
Most of its film output is actually French broadcaster documentaries, not a self‑sustaining cinema. You get more “France at a distance” than “New Caledonia”.

Bottom line: This one is genuinely marginal, even by expanded-entity logic.

3. Northern Cyprus
Why it appears on maximal film lists:
It’s an unrecognised state but with its own government, institutions, and occasional domestic film productions. Lists that treat de facto states as distinct usually include:

Northern Cyprus
Transnistria
Abkhazia
South Ossetia
Somaliland
Nagorno-Karabakh

Why it feels strange:
You don’t get a meaningful body of cinema. Titles are almost impossible to source. And its inclusion can feel political rather than cultural.

Bottom line: It’s on the list only because some cataloguers treat it as a “country‑equivalent” for completeness.

So should they remain in your project?

What matters is your scope definition — and you’ve been very consistent from the start:

Aim for authentic cultural cinema
Prefer production or investment origin
Avoid arbitrary “Wikipedia-list creep”
Allow exceptions only for truly hard territories, and only if they meaningfully represent the place

So here’s the distilled answer:

Faroe Islands — justified if you want cultural regions

Distinct language, local filmmakers, an identifiable film culture.
You’d lose something by removing it.

New Caledonia — optional; probably not worth the trouble

Mostly French content; little that reflects a local cinematic voice.
You could drop it without losing the project’s spirit.

Northern Cyprus — extremely optional

More political artefact than cinematic culture.
You can exclude it comfortably.

If you want, I can:

Re‑evaluate the entire 213‑entity list and flag any others that feel equally weak
Produce a “core list” and an “extended list” so you keep flexibility
Help you decide a principled rule that keeps the project coherent and avoids creeping inflation

Just tell me which direction you'd like to go.

You said: Here's the original full list. What can be safely dropped? [The full list was here.]

Copilot said:
Below is a clean, principled, continuity‑aligned assessment of your full list — focused on which entities can be safely dropped without compromising the cultural or cinematic integrity of your world‑film project.

I’ve categorised everything into four tiers, based entirely on film‑culture legitimacy, your existing project rules, and the “don’t expand into arbitrary political constructs” principle you prefer.

✅ Tier 1 — Must Keep (Core List of Genuine Cinematic Nations)

These are the sovereign UN member states (plus the Vatican and Palestine, which you’ve always treated as valid exceptions).
Everything in this tier should unquestionably remain.

You should keep all of these, as they represent authentic national cinemas:

All 193 UN member states, which your list already contains
Holy See (Vatican City)
State of Palestine

Nothing controversial here.

🟦 Tier 2 — Keep (High-Cinema Entities Outside UN Membership)

These have substantial, distinct film industries separate from their parent states. They belong on any world‑cinema list.

You should keep:

Taiwan
Major national cinema, internationally recognised, culturally distinct.

Hong Kong
One of the world’s great film traditions, historically and artistically.

Macau
Smaller, but unquestionably produces local films; culturally distinct.

These three are fully legitimate.

🟨 Tier 3 — Optional (Culturally Distinct Territories With Some Cinema)

These can be kept, but don’t need to be, depending on how broad you want the project to be.
They have at least some cultural filmmaking, even if output is small.

If your aim is “sovereign states + meaningful film cultures,” these are optional:

Greenland
Small but real cinema; several feature films exist.
Legitimate if you want cultural regions.

Faroe Islands
Mostly shorts/docs, tiny output.
Culturally distinct but borderline.

Aruba
Very small output, but Abo So justifies inclusion.

Curaçao
Similar to Aruba: small but real.

Puerto Rico
Has a robust film culture.
But is part of the US; optional depending on philosophy.

Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
Serious film cultures, decades of distinct cinema.
But if you treat the UK as one entity, these could be folded back in.

If you want a cleaner, sovereign‑centric project, you can drop some or all of these.
If you want maximum cultural granularity, keep them.

🟥 Tier 4 — Drop (Politically Contested or Cinematically Irrelevant Territories)

These entities have little to no indigenous film culture, are politically ambiguous, and add complexity without adding meaningful cinema.

Your project gains nothing from including them.

These can be safely dropped:

New Caledonia
Essentially French cinema; minimal local film voice.

Western Sahara
No real cinema; Algerian co-productions fill the gap.

Northern Cyprus
Politically awkward, almost no distributable film output.

Abkhazia
A few ultra-obscure local films, essentially inaccessible.

South Ossetia
No meaningful distributed cinema.

Transnistria
Same problem — politically interesting but cinematographically empty.

Somaliland
A handful of microbudget works, no physical media access.

These entities create maximum sourcing difficulty with minimal cultural return.
They don’t fit your rules, your preferences, or your authenticity criteria.

⭐ Summary — What Can Be Safely Dropped?

Drop without hesitation:

New Caledonia
Western Sahara
Northern Cyprus
Abkhazia
South Ossetia
Transnistria
Somaliland

Optional drops depending on your scope:

Greenland
Faroe Islands
Aruba
Curaçao
Puerto Rico
Scotland
Wales
Northern Ireland

Must keep (core project):

All UN member states
Vatican City
State of Palestine
Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau

If you want, I can go further:

Produce a cleaned list with the dropped entities removed
Produce two lists: Core Project and Extended Project
Recalculate your “48 completed” status against whichever scope you choose
Suggest a formal rule-set so the scope doesn’t creep over time

Just tell me which direction you’d like.

You said: Is Somaliland a country?

Copilot said: Short answer: Somaliland is not recognised as a sovereign country, but it does operate as one in practice.

Here’s the clear breakdown:

De jure (legal/international status)

No UN member state formally recognises Somaliland as an independent country.
The UN, AU, EU, UK, and all major international bodies treat it as part of Somalia.

So legally and diplomatically, it is not a country.

De facto (on‑the‑ground reality)

Somaliland functions as a separate state:

Its own government
Its own currency
Its own military
Its own borders and immigration
Its own elections

In practical terms, it behaves exactly like a small independent nation — but without recognition.

Why this matters for your film project

Somaliland has:

Minimal film production
Almost no feature‑length output
No meaningful physical media circulation

Even if you included it as a “de facto state”, it contributes nothing to a cinema‑based project and creates huge sourcing difficulty.

Conclusion:
For your purposes — drop Somaliland. It’s neither a recognised country nor a meaningful cinematic entity.

If you want, I can now produce your cleaned-up, de‑cluttered world‑cinema list.

You said: If we drop your 'Drop Without Hesitation' group, but keep the others, how many are actually left on the full list?

Copilot said:

Raw line count (excluding blank lines): 207
When we strip out empty lines and whitespace and check for duplicates, we get 207 unique, non‑empty items.

Alun's Note: Looking back at this, I am very confused as to how removing 7 countries from a list of 213 leaves 207 unique countries/territories. Clearly a mistake had been made, and given that Copilot can't actually "read" in the human sense, I suspect a blank line (or, perhaps, a space on a blank line) had confused it and it had included that. Or not included it. Either way, I was down to 207 films.