Africa
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica

Hope now everyone will be happy :) --tasc 14:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not happy with a template which can't be seen by many users. I've commented at User talk:tasc Warofdreams talk 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the links on this template are to nations in topic (or dependencies, or territories which have declared themselves independent (Somaliland), or nations widely recognised internationally, with governments in exile (Western Sahara)). Having a link to the SADR in the middle of it implies that it will take the user to "Geography of the SADR" (or "History of...", etc), which it does not. As such, it is very confusing, and I have removed it. If you feel that SADR is unclear, it could be expanded, but not by an additional link. Warofdreams talk 03:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be greate if ther were an option that could "unlink" the header of the box. For instance, if you use it with "Foregin relations of", then you get a red link at the top, that dosent look that nice. Since theres no need for a foregin relations of Africa page, it dosent have a function. If this could be removed with an option, it would be greate. Dose anyone know how to do this?

--Screensaver 10:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something it would be useful to link as a header? If so, you can use {{Africa in topic|Foreign relations of|Alternative link}} to produce:

Warofdreams talk 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There must be something i can link it to. Thanks for the tip! Thats one of the good things about wikipedia - theres always someone around if you dont know how to do something. --Screensaver 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or is this template completely broken? Esn 09:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully all in order by now. (Probably a rogue space somewhere...)  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{Africa topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{Africa topic|Communications in}}, {{Africa topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just proposed Military of Réunion for deletion, quite simply because there is no such thing. The same goes for Ceuta, Melilla, Canary Islands, Mayotte and all the other dependencies that have an entry in this template. Still, you get these dumb red links:

Is there a way to cut these out, or will we have to create a new template? --Janneman 19:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just make a redirect to the article which covers the topic - for example, Military of Réunion should redirect to Military of France. Warofdreams talk 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Morocco did not have it's own separate page for Islam in the country, unlike most of the other countries on this template. I just created an Islam in morocco page; would everyone be ok with it being added onto this template to replace to current link to the Demographics of Morocco article? MezzoMezzo 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone has fixed the capitalisation of your article; hopefully this will ensure that the template links to it as you would expect. If you're trying to achieve something different, please give a little more detail - there should be no need to change the template to link to your article. Warofdreams talk 02:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Réunion (in integral part of France that happens to be an island off Africa) is included in this list, should not the Canary Islands (Spain), Madeira (Portugal), and Socotra (Yemen) be as well? I think this template would be improved by being more comprehensive of all the states, dependencies, autonomies, and territories within and offshore of Africa. --ScottMainwaring 00:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added these, as there did not seem to be any objection. --ScottMainwaring 01:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the list, there is not any bantustan flags.... How about adding them? Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_ΞΞΞ_} . -- 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can go ahead and do it, but why are you mentioning this here? Picaroon (Talk) 22:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... Dude... I have no idea why I did that (what the heck was I thinking back then) -- Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_ΞΞΞ_} . -- 22:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC-5)

Shouldn't this template be renamed "Militaries of Africa" or even "Militaries of African Countries"? Military of Africa seems to imply that the continent of Africa itself has one united military force. Ripberger 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I assume you were seeing the template as {{Africa topic|Military of}}. Note that last parameter. Unfortunately, due to the template layout, the title parameter will be the same as the links produced. So we couldn't do {{Africa topic|Militaries of}} because that would produce links to "Militaries of Benin" and such. Picaroon (t) 04:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so its a technical issue? Well, how about "Armed Forces of Africa" then? Or am I still not understanding the issue? I guess in the template the link "Armed Forces of Benin" would just redirect to the article "Military of Benin"? Is this option possible? Ripberger 21:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can change the title which appears for the template by using the following format: {{africa topic|Military of|Militaries of Africa}}. Warofdreams talk 01:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Illogical There are several "X in Western Sahara" pages; by removing the entry for this territory, you are 1.) removing the interdependent links from this template and 2.) removing one of the territories of Africa. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the SADR is not a sovereign state. It should thus not be listed as a sovereign state. That is quite simple. What is the problem?.--A Jalil 08:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem The problems are exactly what I mentioned above and what you spectacularly ignored. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert And in the meantime, you've reverted with no reference to the talk. Anyway, these issues are still outstanding. I've put the SADR in italics and users can make up their own minds about what they think about Sahrawi independence. To say that the SADR is not a state would be POV and contrary to, for instance, the position of the African Union. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The SADR is not a sovereign state. It is a gov-in-exile that claims many things, among them, to be sovereign. All sovereign states are seated on their territories. The SADR is seated in another country, Algeria. No other state in the world has that contradictory situation. So, it is completely ridiculous to try to insert it here and claim people will make their mind about it. On the other hand, Western Sahara as a territory of africa is listed under territories. So please stop your POV-pushing.--A Jalil 08:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is incredibly annoying. You're aware that this template is transcluded on hundreds of articles, right? I do not want to protect it, because then people like Toussaint and Thomas.macmillan will not be able to edit it. I see no other way to stop this disruption besides declaring that the next revert made without talk page consensus by either of you guys will result in a block. That's the only warning you will get.

Now that the edit war is over, can you consider compromising, maybe by placing it in the lower section? That, or just walk away and someone else will make a decision for you. Either way, the current long-term, slow-moving edit war is completely unacceptable. Picaroon (t) 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picaroon, thanks for intervening to stop this nonsense. Please have a look at the other continental templates: template of Asia, template of America and template of Europe. They only contain independent, UN members, and widely recognized states. Palestine, much more widely recognized that the SADR, and seated in its territory, did not make it to the Asia template. The same thing goes for the Turkish republic of Cyprus, and so on. Why is the template of Africa should be any different?. Please note that the Asia template has a very important note: "Please note that this template is only meant to carry those countries recognized by a majority of United Nations members.". So, I suggest that you take this in hand, and decide what should be included. African subjects seem to be one of your main interests, so go ahead and decide.--A Jalil 08:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice example On the Asia template, the Republic of China is linked. It is recognized by less states than the SADR. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore What is the rationale for excluding Western Sahara of all entries? That's especially ridiculous and partisan. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SADR articles There are "X of/in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" articles, so this template should include an entry for the SADR. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list is that of sovereign states and not of the entries which have "X in ...". Western Sahara is present under territories and "X in Western Sahara" is thus covered. Listing the SADR as a sovereign state is deceiving the readers.--A Jalil (talk) 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Africa The SADR is in Africa, consequently, it should be noted in the Africa topic template. Not all "X in Western Sahara" articles are the same as all "X in the SADR" articles, as I stated before, so omitting the SADR from the template excludes readers from navigating to those articles. As you know, a majority of African states have recognized the SADR and as you may not know, it is common to put unrecognized states on these templates (e.g. Template:Europe topic.) Consequently, it is only proper to include the SADR. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zanzibar should be included on the template for various reasons: it is semi-autonomous (has its own political institutions), has its own 'national' football team (see Zanzibar national football team and Zanzibar Football Association), and was once a recognized independent nation by the United Nations. Thoughts on reincluding Zanzibar?--Thomas.macmillan 02:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied and pasted from Thomas' talk: if Zanzibar is included, then why not the Rif, Orange Free State, Cabinda, Biafra, etc.? While it is true that Zanzibar was once a state, that is also the case for dozens and dozens of territories within Africa; to add all of them to the template would be impossible. The territories of Somalis (e.g. Puntland) are on the map because they are actually self-governing (not as autonomous entities in federacies, but like sovereign states.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given which, why is it in as at Jan 2009? --BozMo talk 10:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite possibly on other ones as well but all Politics boxes have been broken recently - they include the alternate link (third | thing) in every link. A bit annoying --Tombomp (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks to User:The Transhumanist! --Tombomp (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The |suffix= parameter is adding a space at the beginning of the line. E.G. {{Africa topic |suffix=n cuisine}} produces Africa n cuisine instead of African cuisine. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to expand the template to include African HIV/AIDS activists with "|group3 = AIDS activists |list3 = [[Zackie Achmat]] {{·w}} [[Gideon Byamugisha]] {{·w}} [[Suzanne Engo]] {{·w}} Alexandra Govere {{·w}} [[Nkosi Johnson]] {{·w}} [[Noerine Kaleeba]] {{·w}} [[Didier Lestrade]] {{·w}} [[Philly Lutaaya]] {{·w}} [[Nelson Mandela]] {{·w}} [[Elizabeth Mataka]] {{·w}} [[Ntare Mwine]] {{·w}} [[Joel Gustave Nana Ngongang]] {{·w}} [[Simon Nkoli]] {{·w}} [[Agnes Nyamayarwo]] {{·w}} [[Joseph Sonnabend]] {{·w}} [[Sheila Tlou]] ". How do I do this? NJGW (talk) 04:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection This template is protected because it is used in so many articles. Your proposal makes a lot of sense for articles that are about HIV/AIDS in Africa, but it is too narrow a topic to add to every article that transcludes this template. If you want to simply add this group only on articles about HIV/AIDS in Africa, you may want to ask someone on the #mediawiki IRC channel or at the Help Desk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only semi-protected, so I can edit it. That's exactly what my question is (for use on the HIV/AIDS in Africa article). I realized as I was editing it that something looked fishy, so I double checked before I hit save and figured out what you just said. Is there a way to create a meta template, or do I have to create a new template with this one as the base and change the link at HIV/AIDS in Africa? NJGW (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably There's got to be some way to add a group to this template and only display if the title includes "HIV/AIDS in X" or something like that. Again, my best guesses for assistance are listed above. You may want to consider just making a separate template, though. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, created from scratch. Please feel free to add to or give input at that template's talk page. NJGW (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where an African country has no railways, I am redirecting the link to the "Transport in..." page. For example, Rail transport in Chad redirects to Transport in Chad. Biscuittin (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing Puntland firstly because it does not appear on the List of states with limited recognition page and Secondly because Somaliland is the only state on the ground that is de facto independent AND asserting its complete independence. (in contrast to Puntland which advocates for a unified Somalia, similar to Galmudug, under their own 'leadership'.) Outback the koala (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. Somaliland is not recognized as "de facto independent" by any country or international organization in the world. It is recognized by all and sundry as a region in northwestern Somalia, albeit a secessionist one (African Union, CIA, the United Nations, the Somali government, the United States government, the British government). And Puntland is not featured on the List of states with limited recognition page obviously because no one put it there, not because it does or does not enjoy limited recognition (which, incidentally, Somaliland does not). It too is recognized as just another region in Somalia. Middayexpress (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct when you say, "[It] is not recognized as "de facto independent" by any country or international organization in the world." Thats what makes it an unrecognized country! And please try to add Puntland to the list, because no editor will have it because of the above stated reasons. Outback the koala (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Somaliland is not a "country" at all much less a sovereign state. It is a secessionist region in northwestern Somalia, and is recognized as such by the international community. It makes no difference whether you added "italics" or not before placing Somaliland in the sovereign states section of the template. That Wikipedia formatting change, I'm afraid, is not enough to alter reality. Puntland is likewise a region in northern Somalia. So there's no point here either in adding it to this list of sovereign states (unless, of course one, is advocating a specific "cause"; for that, please refer to WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV). Middayexpress (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might just be a terminology problem. De jure countries are ones that have formal international recognition. De facto governments lack recognition but are in control on the ground and providing government services. Since Somaliland lacks recognition but is stamping passports, patrolling coastal waters, holding courts, and making mail delivery, it falls into the latter category. Saying that "Somaliland is not recognized as 'de facto independent' by any country or international organization" is true but not meaningfull because de facto doesn't require recognition, de jure does. Does that help?

I'm sorry but Somaliland does not control all the territories it 'claims' as sovereign territory (see Maakhir), which contradicts your argument of Somaliland falling in the 'de facto control' category. There are several other regions currently part of a dispute between Puntland & Somaliland, so the situation is very fluid. Somaliland is not a special case in the current political landscape of Somalia there are several other states that have parliaments and regional armies that operate independently of Somalia all but in name because of the situation in the capital. --Scoobycentric (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]