Europe
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope

Archives

Archive 1

Why isn't Israel in the template? Although it's fully in Asia, Israel participate in Europe in every sport, Football, American Football, Basketball, Swimming, Baseball etc. RaLo18 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because topic pages deal with far more than just sports. If you think the sports page needs it, I suggest subst'ing this page onto a new template, much as I did: Template:Sport in Asia, and making your own from there. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not to include Israel. Israel taken as part of Europe in alot of matters other then sports. If there is a place for countries like Kazakhstan , sure you should include Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luzer1 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully disagree for the simple reason that Israel is not located in Europe. I also think it's incorrect to include countries like Kazakhstan (a part of it is geographically I know but this country can hardly be considered European). Aaker (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, people. We can’t put the Bosnian subnational division of Republika Srpska in this template. Republika Srpska is not an autonomous nation-state, like Serbia; it is not a breakaway government, like Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria; it is not a breakaway government recognized only by one country, like Northern Cyprus, nor a country recognized by some by not by others, like Kosovo. Republika Srpska, as the same way that happens with the also subnational division Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, doesn’t not have an army nor independent foreign relations — both of them are taken by Bosnia itself.

So, as the same way that there is no space in this template for Germany’s Saar, there must be no space for other recognized and regular subnational divisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.232.106 (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the template include Vatican City in the list? (NetJohn (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vatican City is included only when there is an article about that subject in Vatican City. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied this discussion from the Template:European topic talk page. Please verify our understanding of the purpose of this template, before I make the indicated changes. - Canglesea (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I applaud the work that's been done on this template, and I can see where it would be useful in many places. Unfortunately, in its current form it suffers from a major problem: many, if not most, of the pages it links to are disambiguation pages, which should not be linked to. For instance, I disambiguate incoming links to Danish, which is how I found this template: the Denmark link in the template goes to Danish. This urgently needs to be fixed, and my suggestion would be to link the country names to the country articles instead (e.g., let Denmark link to Denmark), but I leave that to someone else's judgment; however, the links need to be fixed ASAP. Thanks. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this template is intended to be a generator page for templates about subjects common to European countries. The generated templates might include, "People of ...", History of ...", etc. Using Romania as an example, the generated links might include "Romanian people", "Romanian history", etc. Since this is a "Generator page", not intended to be accessed by the end user, I think the solution to the internal DAB links issue is to change the links to their respective country articles, which I will do in the near future if I hear no objections. - Canglesea (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be that some of the autonomous republic of the Republics of Russia are not included, while other ones from the other nations are. Any reason why or just simply missed?That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Republics of Russia are in here. At least I haven't noticed any of them. Reason for not including them is that none of them AFAIK has any kind of special status over other, or specific aspirations for independence or significant addition to the autonomy. If we'd start including all of the autonomous territories in Europe this template would become too cumbersome. Note that it's also missing the Spanish autonomies (All sub-divisions of Spain are autonomies) and some other autonomies, which are rather a standard than an exception. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of rail transport in Europe includes places where no locomotive has been before, I'd say. Can't we slim this down to places which actually have rails, and a history to write about? On the other hand, Prussia has a major history also in rail transport, see eg. Prussian state railways, yet does not appear. So I add "countries_only=yes" there. -- Matthead  Discuß   17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it is time to consider how much of the template is relevant to the topics (and sub-topics) that are transcluded from the template. As I said, at least half of the entries of the template are Republics of Russia (or former Republics, or Autonomous Republics of Georgia, Armenia, etc.). This means that for any given topic, there are at least 30 or 40+ red links. It somewhat defeats the point of the template to have so many potential, or unwritten entries.

I suggest that a new template is created (Template:Greater Europe topic ??), which does include any given autonomous territory/republic. Meanwhile, this template should be restricted to:

• a sovereign, nation-state;
• a partly sovereign state (e.g. Channel Islands, Kosovo), at the very least recognised by other international governments;
• an island state.

Most of the above issue their own passports. So that could be used as a rule of thumb. Any thoughts, suggestions?? (Kreb (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• • Just to re-iterate, someone else noted this a month ago:

Seems to be that some of the autonomous republic of the Republics of Russia are not included, while other ones from the other nations are. Any reason why or just simply missed?That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

None of the Republics of Russia are in here. At least I haven't noticed any of them. Reason for not including them is that none of them AFAIK has any kind of special status over other, or specific aspirations for independence or significant addition to the autonomy. If we'd start including all of the autonomous territories in Europe this template would become too cumbersome. Note that it's also missing the Spanish autonomies (All sub-divisions of Spain are autonomies) and some other autonomies, which are rather a standard than an exception. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This does ask why so many autonomous areas have been loaded onto the template, without question. (Kreb (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• I think that the Russian autonomies should be removed from this template as most of the subdivisions of Russia have a significant degree of autonomy. Those that are included atm have a greater degree of autonomy than the others, but I still think that there are too many of them. As for other autonomous areas most of them have autonomy that differs significantly from the degree of autonomy of other subdivisions and/or are geographically separated from the rest of the country. And of course the actively separatist entities should be included. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jhattara, there are too many sub-divisions of Russia here. Are they really autonomous in comparison with German Lander? What is our standard for inclusion? PolScribe (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least all these entries in Russia are Republics, not only lands. Moreover they are the separate nations. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 17:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, at {{Asia topic}} we've just switched over to the same template layout as the Europe topic template, but it requires an adjustment that I'm not sure how to make. "The" needs to be added to some countries' link form, so instead of "Politics of Republic of China" it links to "Politics of the Republic of China".

The following entries need a "the" added:

• People's Republic of China
• Maldives
• Republic of China
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Gaza Strip
• West Bank

An admin will need to make the changes as the page is fully protected. Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should've taken this up at {{Asia topic}}, but I'll fix the code and make an edit request at the appropriate talk page. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be missing something, but what is the logic behind including Vojvodina? It has less autonomy than the Republika Srpska. There would be better justification for including the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, surely? PolScribe (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I see you do include the parts of the UK. Why Vojvodina if not the RS, though? PolScribe (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I have understood it correctly Vojvodina is an autonomous area with special status within Serbia. On the other hand Republika Srpska is one of two equal parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Including RS would mean including the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If both of those are included they should be included in a similar fashion as the constituent parts of United Kingdom are. But including those would prompt e.g. Germans to include all of their states and Spanish to include all of their autonomies, which would create an endless expansion for this template. So. In short. Vojvodina's autonomy is a special status. Republika Srpska has so special status when compared to the other BiH constituent, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That's why Vojvodina is in here and Republika Srpska is not. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 18:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt "Parliament of Europe" box be plural? Very confusing, as the EU is actually a parliament of Europe but this box is not about the EU. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.89.214 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be fixed by changing the template inclusion from {{Europe topic|Parliament of}} to {{Europe topic|Parliament of|title=Parliaments of Europe}}. I'll try to do that later today. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit to the template and asked that you please use the talk page before reverting, but someone reverted anyway, so I'll kindly make my comments here.

This is a list of countries in Europe. Does it really need to be noted that France has territory in South America, the Netherlands has territory in North America, and that Spain has territory in Africa? I don't think so, and the templates for other continents do not mention these. Denmark is in Europe so it should be listed on the Europe template. The fact that it owns Greenland which is in North America is irrelevant to this template. All these notes do is create clutter. I left Asia on because countries like Russia and Kazakhstan actually span both continents and don't just have a dependent territory elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 18:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Republics of Russia may be considered autonomous areas, they are still integral parts of Russia, and nearly all of the uses of this template do not work for these regions anyway. Any article dealing with Russia fully includes all of these in the first place so they are unnecessary.

Svalbard is "a full part of the Norwegian Kingdom" and "is not a Norwegian dependency." The same goes for Jan Mayen. Although they are other territories, they are not distinct from Norway in most cases.

Very few of the uses of this template at Template:Europe topic/doc#Templates implemented with Europe topic involve any of the other territories, nor should articles ever be made for most of them, so many of the listed other territories are really unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 18:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, I was somewhat surprised that Scania is not included in the template even though other regions with (to my feeble mind) similar status are included. There is not a strong movement for autonomy or independence as far as I know (but do see Talk:Scania for some alternate opinions) but a somewhat distinct identity, stemming from the particulars of the history and culture of the region. Any opinions one way or the other? Should Svalbard et al. be removed, or should Scania be included? (Or am I confused?)-- era (Talk | History) 18:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess thatScania fails all of the tests used for non-states to be included in this template. No special autonomy. No strong drive for independence. Geographically linked to the rest of the country. Svalbard is probably included because of its geographic location. I don't think I would too strongly oppose its removal from this template, if such opinions are brought forth by several editors. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland SHOULD be removed from this Template:Europe topic as they are NOT sovereign states in there own right but within the United Kingdom. Please USE Template:United Kingdom topic for them instead! --Mr Taz (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are included as the constituents of United Kingdom. They are included here e.g. because they are the members in many international organizations, especially in sporting organizations, instead of UK. E.g. article Football in England uses this template for navigational aid. If in certain subject the constituents are not relevant, they can be removed from those articles using option UK_only=yes. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport is not as important an issue as sovereignty. These are not sovereign states and any presenation as if they are is an attempt to undermine sovereignty. I know federalists are on a mission to break up the UK, divide and conquer, but still this is extremely subversive and unequal. If you are going to do this for the UK, then do it for Spain, Germany, Italy, etc also. In Spain there are things such as Parliament of Catalonia (they even have a Catalonia national football team), Parliament of Andalusia, while Germany has things such as a Parliament of Bavaria. This is a situation not too far fetched from the UK with the Scottish Parliament, a bit of neutrality here please. - Gregardia (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the situations in Spain and Germany are similar, but the visibility of the UK constituencies is far greater. It's not just sports. It's just the one field where their existance is the most prominient. And in the template there is an option to hide the constituents when keeping them is not appropriate. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 12:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the footnote "historically considered European" is all very well for Cyprus, which is historically Greek, and Greece is of course European. But it is very dubious indeed for Armenia, which isn't "historically" considered European at all. To the contrary, the idea that Armenia is "culturally European" appears to be entirely recent, born of the Armenia-Turkey conflict. The footnote in its current phrasing thus cannot apply to Cyprus and Armenia equally. --dab (𒁳) 16:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia is definitely not European. It is an ancient Asian power.--Dojarca (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest - delete Armeria from this template altogether? AndrewRT(Talk) 00:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. We do not include other non-European countries here.--Dojarca (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]