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

The Africa template has the following code that prevents redlinks in the titles: |title = {{#if:{{{title|}}} | {{{title}}} | {{#ifexist:{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}}_Africa{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}} | [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Africa{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}]] | {{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Africa{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}} }} }} See Category:Bahá'í_Faith_by_country for an example of how these templates look side by side. Could this be implemented here too please. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done AndrewRT(Talk) 23:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just passing by to let anyone watching this template know that the footnote for superscript 1 is missing. If I knew what it is I would fix it. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 02:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this template is getting out of hand. Sometime last year, someone has added every region of Russia that has "autonomous" in its name, and also Vojvodina. The way I see it, if we are ridiculous, we should be ridiculous all the way, and add all the autonomous regions of Spain and Italy, the Free State of Bavaria and a host of other things; or, we could remove these and only leave territories that really enjoy a special status. Nikola (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. I would even go further and include only fully recognised nations and territories. --Axt (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, there are 21 republic in Russian Federation. They are not just autonomies like Vojvodina, but fully non-Russian nations.--Riwnodennyk ✉ 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your arguments fall down with the UK - in sporting terms, it's much more common to have Scottish, English and Welsh teams/leagues/set ups than purely British ones. As regards the Republics of Russia, many/most of these are not in Europe, but in central Asia. I would consider adding the Basque Country as well as Catalonia, as there are good arguments to do so. The German Laender have distinct identities, but don't have their own quasi-national set ups, like Scotland and Wales, and to a lesser extent Catalonia and the Basque Country.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Nikola. The Russian republics cannot even choose their own leader, unlike most second-level political subdivisions in many (all?) EU countries. Only entities with an outstanding degree of de-facto political autonomy should be included IMO, if any. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially zero uses of this template when used with a parameter have the Russian autonomies bluelinked, nor should bluelinks for these regions exist. They are geographically and politically within Russia but have limited autonomy. As pointed out above, these have nothing special about them and they are never listed on any other list of European territories. There is no reason for these redlinks to appear in practically every usage of this template, or even bluelinks. I have removed them. Reywas92^Talk 18:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar situation with russian autonomies is in the Template:Asia topic. Alinor (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure why we have Azores/Malderia, but no Canares (eg. maybe we should list all three or neighter)? Alinor (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Items should be included if a reasonable user might look for them. We are not making statements about geography, politics or tectonics, simply speeding users navigation of WP. Armenia is for example a member of the Council of Europe. I propose we simply reduce the number of footnotes to one, "Not always considered part of Europe". Rich Farmbrough, 16:06 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Good idea. Ben MacDui 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have severe reservations about the use of the switch "regions of" with this template and its potential for confusing readers - please see Template_talk:Regions of Europe (a template duplicated by the use of this switch) and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 2#Template:Regions of Europe for details. Knepflerle (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to suppress the use of the "|article=yes" parameter on {{i2c}} for particular values of {{{prefix}}}? When the country name is intended as the first word of a title, the current code generates names such as Category:The United Kingdom templates, instead of Category:United Kingdom templates, which would make more sense. (See {{Europe templates}} for the source of this example, where {{{prefix}}} is ':Category:'.) --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered my own question -- included "article = no" in the parameters of {{Europe templates}} and that solved the problem. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the section of dependencies and autonomous regions, appears Catalonia, but I don't see the Basque Country? The Basque Country has more history, conflicts, own police, and it has the most autonomous regional government of Spain. I don't understand why some appears and other don't. --An13sa (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would back a proposal to include the Basque Country on that basis.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also--Lemonade100 (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds citiation. Please provide sources that would indicated that Armenia is "historically considered European". Incusion of other Caucasian countries is doubtful as well BTW. Netrat (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually pretty common to include Armenia in a list of European countries, but exactly what Kazakhstan is doing on here described as a European country is another matter...--MacRusgail (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be pretty random which countries have this designation and which are "Partially or entirely in Asia, depending on the border definitions." I'm inclined to combine them into a single footnote if no one objects. EeepEeep (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the "Europe topic" template is divided in three sections: sovereign states, other entities (sui-generis supranational entity - EU, sovereign non-state entitiy - SMOM), dependencies/autonomies/territories.

• The second can be shown/hidden with the parameter "no_other_entities=yes".
• The third can be shown/hidden with the parameter "countries_only=yes".

Additionaly there are four entity-specific show/hide parameters:

• links to non-existing articles for the Vatican City are not shown (done with #ifexist extension)
• if some topic is not applicable to ALL of the UK constituent countries the corresponding links can be hidden with the parameter "UK_only=yes"
• if some topic is not applicable to the European Union the corresponding link can be hidden with the parameter "no_EU=yes"
• if some topic is not applicable to the European Union the corresponding link can be hidden with the parameter "no_SMOM=yes"

Using #ifexist vs. explicit "do-not-show"-parameter:

In general links to non-existing articles can be usefull, because if there is no "Culture of France" article and some reader of the "Culture of Italy" article sees the red link in the template on the bottom and he can contribute and create the missing article. Additionaly it is very common for the Vatican/EU/SMOM articles to have different names (for example instead of "Vatican City" in the name, as used in the template link, the appropriate article can be with "Holy See". The same is with European Union/European Commission/etc., Sovereign Military Order/Order of Malta/Military Order of Malta/etc. combinations). Additioanly the prefixes like "in/of/to" and the use/no use of "the" before EU/SMOM/Vatican are different for most entities on the template and these three. One example for such discrepancy is the following: "Diplomatic missions to the Holy See" instead of the generic link that the template creates: "Diplomatic missions in Vatican City" (in this example we have all three errors in linking: "to/in", "the", name-difference). This is easy avoided by creating the appropriate redirects, but in order to do this the template should show the corresponding red link to non-existing article (then the users can click on it, search, find the appropriate article and creat redirect).

A positive side of "#ifexist" is its automatic application, without manualy adding a "do-not-show".

Should the Vatican-option be changed to "do-not-show" or some of the UK/EU/SMOM options to "#ifexist"?Alinor (talk) 09:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman Catholicism in Europe is a total mess in regards to the UK. For a start the Catholic Church never has been organised on the basis of the UK: it organises on the basis of England & Wales, Ireland (the whole island, ie. both the Republic + NI) and Scotland.

If you click on the England or Wales links in the template you get redirected to the E&W article. If you click on the Rep of Ire or NI links you get redirected to the Ireland article. It is unclear why there is even a Wikipedia article on Roman catholicism in the UK -> it seems to have been created purely to turn the redlink in this template blue. It is a non-subject.

Please advise on how to fix this mess. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From User_talk:Alinor: I'm glad you see the value in the Europe topic template. Would it be possible to work the code on Template:Europe topic so that it only includes links to the European Union and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta when specified rather than when not specified? These two entities do not apply to the vast majority of current uses of the template and their inclusion should be treated as an exception rather than the rule. There are just too many articles that would need to be edited in order to remove the current inappropriate redlinks.Neelix (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but it could be done better. Alinor (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request that we move the "constitutent countries of the United Kingdom to the Territories, Regiond etc... group instead of putting them with the UK in the cuntries box. --Lemonade100 (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree. The nations of the UK have always had a special differentiation that no other country in Europe has mirrored. Many people cannot think of the UK without thinking of its being made up of its four constituent countries. The article Terminology of the British Isles also includes a fair bit on what is meant by the many often confused terms applied to the islands and its nations, so it's fitting to put their links next to it. And moving them to the last section would be classifying them on the same level as the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which is neither fair nor appropriate in my opinion. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They more integral than Isle of mann or the channel islands so it would be more fair for the countries to move and the crown dependancies to fill the space they left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree per Andrei Iosifovich - and the proposed inclusion of Yorkshire is eccentric to say the least. Ben MacDui 08:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template is somewhat incorrect in this respect as it links to the defunct bodies of the "Parliament of Northern Ireland" and the "Parliament of Scotland". Can this be changed to reflect the modern institutions of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament? Benson85 (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only by changing the target pages into redirects that point to the modern institutions. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the alterations, I think it shows the United Kingdom as one country rather than a federation of which the template implies. I would like to add that i think of the UK as Great Britain and Northern Ireland not the four former countries that now make it up Gbsj (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gbsj, and welcome to Wikipedia. As you are a new editor we can't expect you to be up-to-speed with all our complex policies so forgive me if the following seems a little arcane. It is a comment for more experienced editors who may draw their own conclusions. Compare this diff with this. Ben MacDui 21:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand of the template, it is structured so that a country's name need only be put in and it will create a link of "Name of X"; however, many of these are redirect links. To me it seems like a roundabout way of doing things. This way of creating the navbox is not especially faster or easier to create or maintain. I understand that remaking the template from scratch might take a while, but wouldn't it be better if the links went directly to the appropriate pages? The main objection I would accept is if this is supposedly too confusing; for example, if I scroll over the Wales link and see "Walha", I might not trust the link. Otherwise, though, this box seems very indirect. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why appears catalonia in this template and it don't appear basque country, andalusia, or community of madrid? there are autonomous regions too. 89.141.14.171 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Catalonia from the template. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. Catalonia, the Basque Country and Galicia should be included in this template as autonomous nations within the Spanish state. Andalucia and some of the others are a little vaguer.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain is composed of 17 autonomous communities and 5 places of sovereignty. The autonomous communities have some differences between the levels of power they have in their use, but none of those (AFAIK) are remarkably wider than the others have. If some of the communities would be included it's very hard to define the exact limits for an autonomous community that would be included in here. Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia and Andalusia were the original historic nations, but nowadays also Valencia, Canaries, Balears and Aragon define themselves as nations. If the existance of independent law enforcement would be the definition then Basque Country, Navarre and Catalonia would be automatically included with provisions for including e.g. Andalusia and Madrid. In short: it's a thin red line that would be used to include or exclude some of the autonomous communities. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be, but the Basques, Catalans and Galicians seem to have the best defined identity, as well as a long history. Andalucia and the Canaries are distinct, but I don't find it as easy to make a case for them.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you'd still have to find that one certain distinguishing factor that would apply to all of those included, to none of those not included, and be somewhat significant in broader sense. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 18:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if there is some way that Israel could be included for certain purposes. I am well aware that it is not a European country, but for political reasons, it is a member of European sporting, broadcasting etc bodies.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that would be too controversial edit. It would be easier to create separate templates where needed, like the {{European Broadcasting Union Members}}. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Israel is not in Europe. It only participates in European events because the middle east prevents it taking part on Asian or Middle eastern events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to begin with... :)--MacRusgail (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came here after noticing that the headline for the navbox for parliaments reads Parliament of Europe. Am I the only that thinks this should be corrected to the proper plaural form Parliaments of Europe? I would just be bold and fix it myself, but this template is a complex, interconnected one that allows for its use on many different topics, and I really don't want to break it. oknazevad (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with National Library of Europe. LokiClock (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can change {{Europe topic|prefix=National Library of}} into {{Europe topic|prefix=National Library of|title=National Libraries of Europe}} (like I did on Clementinum), but you have to change it on each article that uses this template to list European National Libraries. Svick (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the template is roughly divided into 'normal states' and 'unrecognised states, autonomous entities etc.'. This division is sometimes employed to have a template appear only with the former, for example in Template:Military of Europe. This makes sense because autonomous enitities typically don't have their own armies. However, the same does not hold true for the states with limited recognition (Abkhazia, Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, South Ossetia and Transnistria). Even worse, I can't think of a single situation where a topic makes sense for normal states but doesn't for states with limited recognition. I therefore propose that the states with limited recognition be grouped separetely, in between normal states and autonomous entities, with independent parameter settings.sephia karta | di mi 12:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the other entities section show up as just a dot sometimes? It should either show the items in the section, or the section should not show at all. - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 19:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some quite bizarre reason, Iran is included as one of the countries listed under "Law enforcement in Europe." This entry should presumably be removed and stay removed unless someone can come up with a cogent argument as to why Iran is actually a European state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.13.43 (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see that? Svick (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. If you go to the page for Law enforcement in France, at the bottom there is a box entitled "Law enforcement in Europe;" it is there that you'll find Iran listed as a European country. I've tried to fix it but, being relatively new to this Wikipedia lark, I can't seem to figure it out. Any ideas on how to fix this?

As an aside, I must say that I find it rather unintuitive that the 'e' link on that box doesn't actually allow one to edit the contents of the box; instead it seems to be a link to edit the template from which the box is derived. This is a terribly silly way of doing things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.13.43 (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Iran in that box. And if you looked at the code of that page, you would see that the box is created by the code {{Europe topic|Law enforcement in}}, so this template is the place where you can edit that box. Svick (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be there now, but it certainly was there. This is quite bizarre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.13.43 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place here on how best to incorporate unrecognised states into a navigation template listing sovereign states and other entities. Some editors have suggested that including such states at all is pushing an imbalanced point of view. Others have made the same argument for not including them. Various conciliatory methods have been proposed, but have not acheived consensus. Editors should note that the outcome of this discussion will most likely have implications on this template aswell. For more information, please have a look at this casefile, or see the before-mentioned discussion page. Night w (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the template add an article for EU? Like The United Kingdom and The Netherlands. Right now the EU links have to go via a specially created redirect of the title with the in it. Thanks.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. If the article without “the” exists, it is considered first (even if it's just a redirect, see {{Extreme points of Europe}}), but if it doesn't, the variant with “the” is used (see {{Religion in Europe}}). Svick (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how Cyprus is a problem, as an island nation it is naturally not part of any "continent" strictly speaking but the Republic of Cyprus is of course as much part of the European Union as the Republic of Ireland. The question is what to do with Northern Cyprus. Not a member of the EU, not in Europe, not widely recognized, but on the territory claimed by Cyprus, which is a member of the EU.

On the other hand, in my opinion, there can be no debate about Armenia, Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh. These are simply not in Europe by any definition. We might as well list Australia because of "socio-political ties" to Britain. --dab (𒁳) 10:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed on multiple occasions and the conslusion is that both Cyprus and Armenia remain, but with note for "geographicaly asian"... Alinor (talk)

The "conslusion" is no such thing, as there was clearly never anything like unanimous consensus. I have a basic objection to obsessive completeness in navigation boxes (we have categories for that), and actual "pov-pushing by navigation box", in this case "Armenia is in Europe", is absolutely unacceptable.

Saying that "Armenia is geographically in Asia" on an "in Europe" template is absurd. You may as well insist on the inclusion of cat in the {{Domestic dog}}, defending the inclusion with a note to the effect that "cats are zoologically felidae". --dab (𒁳) 10:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this template have to do with politics? Why are we organizing cuisines in terms of "recognized states" etc.?

We should list cuisines in a different order. Perhaps we should organize by region (group Balkan cuisines together etc). That makes more sense than the current arrangement.

Bless sins (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't just for cuisines, but also for various other subjects, including those that deal with politics. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 17:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please include Armenia in the Europe topic due to the fact that Armenia is a country is partially or entirely in Asia, depending on the border definitions such as Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia.

Minasyan (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Armenia, but not because of border definitions, but rather because of EU and CoE. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you note my comment of 11 May right above? How about trying to seek consensus instead of simply reverting the edit? What sort of request is "Please include Armenia in the Europe topic due to the fact that Armenia as a country is partially or entirely in Asia"?? Perhaps we should include Angola because of the fact that Angola is "partially o entirely in Africa"? The way I see it, we list three types of geographical entities (issues of recognition aside),

• states that are entirely in Europe
• transcontinental states
• states that may or may not be considered transcontinental, depending on the definition of "Europe" as a geographical term

The third category includes Georgia, but not Armenia. Armenia is in neither of these categories, as it is undisputedly to 100% in Asia according to any common definition of either "Europe" or "Armenia". Membership in associations containing the name "Europe" is hardly sufficient to prove the geographic location of a state. Or else we will be forced to admit Israel is in Europe because it participated in the Eurovision Song Contest. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus is as much in Asia as Armenia, but this thing is discussed broadly on multiple wikipedia pages and the consensus is that we list both Cyprus and Armenia in both Europe and Asia with the appropriate footnotes. Israel is not such a case - its membership in european organizations (by the way, besides some sports federation like UEFA, are there any purely european political organizations where Israel is a member?) is because of problems with its arab neighboors and thus with the appropriate regional organizations.Alinor (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted dab as per Alinor.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus as an island is not "in" any continent. This may have been "discussed broadly" on many, many pages, but I fail to see how this amounts to any sort of consensus. My impression is much rather that there has never been anything like a consensus.

the fact that the reverting is done courtesy of our resident Armenian nationalist pov-pushers should also give you pause. Perhaps there would be a consensus if we discounted these accounts.

How is Israel's problem with its neighbours any different from Armenia's problem with its neighbours for the purposes of a purely geographic classification? I have no problem with accepting Israel and Armenia as "western" countires at least in some respects, but "western" isn't equivalent to "European".

If the reverting continues, we will have no choice but tagging this template as disputed. This will be a disaster because it is widely transculded. It will mean that a small number of Europhile Armenian accounts will hold hostage a wide range of European topics that have nothing to do with their agenda. I strongly urge you that pov-pushing via navigation templates (an old favourite of our Armenian nationalists, see Talk:Urartu) is to be strongly discouraged, and that the default course for disputed items in navboxes is omission (which isn't the same as a positive statement). If we cannot agree on that, it will have to be a {{disputed}} tag. --dab (𒁳) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-added Vojvodina - a autonomous province in Serbia in the template under "Dependencies, other territories" category. A definition from the article territory states "In international politics, a territory is a non-sovereign geographic area which has come under the authority of another government; which has not been granted the powers of self-government normally devolved to secondary territorial divisions; or both." - where Vojvodina has its own government, institutions and its constitution (Statute) therefore it should be present in this template. Adrian (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vojvodina is somewhat autonomous but not like Svalbard or Gibraltar. Therefore, I suggest entry for Vojvodina should be removed. 89.216.30.13 (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial reaction was to agree with 89.216.30.13. However, as Kosovo had similar status to Vojvodina within Serbia and I believe that it would have been listed as a "Dependency" prior to its declaration of independence, I agree with Adrian on the inclusion Vojvodina in the template. Davshul (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since there was a war in and about Kosovo before it gained current status, I will agree to include Vojvodina in this list after a similar war.89.216.30.13 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the autonomous territory of Nakhchivan to the template, in light of the inclusion of Azerbaijan (of which it forms part) and Armenia (which separates it geographically from the rest of Azerbaijan). Nakhchivan also appears as an autonomous territory on the Asia topic template, and thus I have included a superscript 1. Davshul (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion taking place here on the Template:Asia topic discussion page, including the "New suggestion", regarding countries and territories that could be considered within both Europe and Asia, that could result in certain changes to the Europe topics template. Davshul (talk) 09:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone remove it from the template, please? It is part of Serbia and uses the same postal code system as the rest of the country, as Andalusia, Basque Country, etc do in Spain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.52.128.80 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, this template is as good as useless. The precise configuration of states and non-states included in it very rarely corresponds to the actual requirements of the subtemplates. Kazakhstan is in Central Asia, but considered to be part of Europe for the purposes of certain international organisations. Why are the devolved parts of the United Kingdom recognised, but not those of Spain? What chance is there ever going to be of a National Library of Jan Mayen? I therefore propose that we more towards retaining the rough framework provided here, but requiring that subtemplates first be set up in their own right, so that they might be individually edited, before they can be used elsewhere.Orthorhombic, 14:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at some points, but this problem could be easily solved with making a new category, something like "Partially in Europe" and then enumerate those states. Adrian (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The countries of the UK have been included on this template for years and have been discussed above. They are obviously there by consensus and shouldn't be removed on a whim. I have re-instated them. Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be based on a discussion based on consensus. I do agree however that subdivision of a state-proper are not appropriate. I realize there is a big difference in jurisdications, but whether they are DE-Bundeslaender, nations (Catalunia), NL-provincies or UK-countries they are subdivisions and would make the list too long. I see no reason for an exception for the UK (except in some sports). L.tak (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for this right now, more discussion is needed. Outback the koala (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Life is full of exceptions and this long-standing convention has its uses. Quite apart from the rather anomalous position these "constituent countries" find themselves in, this being the English-language Wikipedia, as you might expect there are often articles, some of them to a high standard, for one or more of them. In the same context it is not unusual for many sovereign states have stubs or nothing at all. See for example the templates at:

*List of the vascular plants of Britain and Ireland (where only about fifteen entries appear, 5 of which are English-speaking entities)

*Fauna of Scotland

*Geology of Europe

*Law in Europe

In short, I think it's fine the way it is. Ben MacDui 20:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not contesting these articles exist or that they have merit. Indeed there is a significant UK-population editing here which results in more articles about the UK, then of (say) Germany. That could also mean that more UK-specific templates (geography of UK, with subdivisions of the different countries) could exist. But that doesn't warrant different treatment in this type of templates. We should either put in lower administrative divisions, or only those that are called land (germany), nation (only catalunia by constitution) or country (uk). But only giving the English language country UK a more-detailed treatment because this it is an english language wikipedia seems not neutral to me and I have found no policy guideline for favourable treatment at all. I also wonder what we should do about the divisions of Ireland if english-language were to be a governing principle... L.tak (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think they should probably be removed. It's weird to have the constituent countries listed under the sovereign state in the sovereign state section, especially as it is the only state with those added. Although these 4 countries (or whatever you want to call them) have a unique and complex history and an interesting terminology situation, that does not mean that they deserve special treatment and mention in the template. The argument that they belong due to more articles written about them really isn't that strong, it just plays into systematic bias. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am arguing from a pragmatic basis rather than PC theory. The function of the template is navigation. It is patently unhelpful for navigational purposes to obscure useful articles whilst displaying numerous red links for non-existent ones. As soon as there are sufficient articles for non-sovereign state countries in other states, we can add them too. If you find the existing ones annoying you can always use the "UK_only=yes" parameter. Ben MacDui 11:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to change the section named "States with limited recognition" to "Countries and states with limited recognition". BTW, is there any reason that the UK is pipe-linked to "The United Kingdom", thereby forcing a re-direct? Daicaregos (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From a pragmatic basis we could probably say that even more areas should be covered, there'd be little limit to what could be included. There needs to be a defined objective.

No reason for that random redirect at all, nonsensical. Feel free to remove, good spot. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an implemented template, which means it is used to create other templates simply through changing the prefix parameter. It is not designed to be transcluded in its original format. This facilitates easy and effective management through synchronisation. The creation of hundreds of new templates to replace this one would be pure chaos. I don't see these as serious issues — if a reader wants Kazakhstan, they'll just have to click the link to the topic and find it through there; if there isn't likely to ever be many articles for Jan Mayen, then we can add a switch to hide it; if the UK constituent articles aren't extant, then turn the UK_only switch to yes. These are minor annoyances; the advantages, however, of having a single template (rather than who-knows-how-many) are far more significant.

In response to Daicaregos, the template uses {{i2c}} documentation. In this case, because the link will point not to the United Kingdom page, but rather an associated article (e.g., Politics of the United Kingdom), the conjunctive "the" must be present in the title. This is shown by the code {{i2c|GB|article=yes}}.

On the UK country links, I would prefer those links to remain in order to give editors the option to include them, should consensus deem it necessary. Nightw 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then still, it would not be equal treatment to treat the administrative divisions of only the UK, and not of other countries. Despite its history and the English language used here it should be all, all similar (as explained above) or none. Everyone is welcome of course to make a specific "UK countries" template for those articles that that is reasonalbe and to make linking easy... L.tak (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to this discussion after a week, I would like to thank everyone for there thoughts and contributions, many of which demonstrate a greater deal of technical savvy than I was bringing to the table. Taking on board all the competing considerations, I would suggest that the following subtle change to the template that would improve its usefulness and consistency. Instead of having the four UK constituent countries being included by default, the template would be more logical and would make WP look less arbitrary or contingent, if the four UK constituent countries were excluded by default. This would cover certain (e.g. sporting) contexts where the inclusion of Eng/NI/Sco/Wales does make a great deal of sense. If there is no more formal mechanism, I would propose an informal vote on the issue. Orthorhombic, 23:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Orthorhombic. That should hopefully provide a reason to keep over the argument that it is inconsistent, as in pages such as sports they do have a special relevance other areas don't have. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I don't like the idea I have to accept that there is at least a case to be made for it. I think a problem with the current dialogue may be that such changes may affect many articles, but those watching here may be fewer than was once the case - possibly due to the large number of discussions and edits to the template about the inclusion or otherwise of links to territories of marginal relevance. I suggest a note to relevant Wikiprojects before attempting to proceed on the basis of a handful of opinions. Ben MacDui 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small edit war has been ongoing for the past few days between Varlaam and Outback the koala. Outback wants to mention Kingdom of the Netherlands, with Netherlands between brackets as a constituent country. Varlaam just wants the Netherlands. I have to say I agree with Varlaam. I came here from the List of supermarket chains in the Netherlands page, where this template is used as List of supermarket chains in Europe. The Kingdom of the Netherlands constists of the Netherlands and three Caribbean islands, so it's nonsensical to have an article called List of supermarkets in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it would just be a union of four list pages that have nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, this is a template for things in Europe, and the European part of the Kingdom coincides with the Netherlands. There's no need to mention a particular Kingdom of the Netherlands page here, which would just be the same as the particular Netherlands page plus some things outside Europe, i.e. irrelevant to this template. Mtcv (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is not with the Netherlands, but with the English language. English speakers have decided to call the two areas (Kingdom and constituent) by the same name. Why is nobody edit warring over the Kingdom of Denmark? I think the fact is that this is English wikipedia, and in common english usage "Netherlands" stands as a substitute for the sovereign state, and that is how the articles will be titled in English wikipedia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really helpful to have the subheadings "Sovereign states" and "States with limited recognition" linking to (respectively) List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition? When would these links actually be of use to a reader? I suggest they should be left unlinked, as they're not relevant to the purpose of the template, they're just grouping for the links that are the real purpose of this template. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas, add the "Republics of European Russia" category to the template. This are Karelia, Komi Republic, Kalmykia, Mari El Republic, Mordovia, Tatarstan, Udmurtia and Chuvashia.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When used in the Governments of Europe template, the link for Abkhazia goes to Government of Abkhazia, which is a disambiguation page. It would be more appropriate to link to Government of the Republic of Abkhazia, but I can't figure out how to change it. Can anyone help? (Note that this link also appears on the corresponding Asia template, and needs fixing there as well.) Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now solved this problem using a different method - a redirect from Government of Abkhazia to Government of the Republic of Abkhazia. Bazonka (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The box refers to "Parliament of Europe" - apparently referring to the Parliaments in geographical Europe. However, the title link redirects to the "European Parliament" - the parliament of the European Union (EU). This certainly should not be the header link for the template, although it is appropriate as a subheading. I would edit this if I were able.

(l would prefer that the title should also read "Parliaments of Europe", corresponding to correct usage and "Parliaments of Asia") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.28.141 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of making a separate template that puts the United Kingdom as one as one which could be used for things where the United Kingdom is a single entity such as Diplomatic Missions or Immigration where the current one has links that don't work, The current template would be still used for other things, Discuss. C. 22468 (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is in this template. What link doesn't work? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to suppress the constituent countries I think you just need the "UK_only=yes" parameter in the existing template. Ben MacDui 17:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Irish-born and there's a problem. When the "Parliament of" parameter is used, why does the Ireland link not link to Oireachtas, but rather "Parliament of the Republic of Ireland" or something like that? What's going on? -- 92.4.76.103 (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Parliament of" isn't a parameter, it's the prefix (see here). So when you use {{Europe topic|Parliament of}} it sets the prefix of all links in the navbox to "Parliament of <country>". Does this make sense? Nightw 17:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but someone should fix it to link to Oireachtas; the current link is slightly wrong. -- 92.4.76.103 (talk) 10:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is not as sophisticated as you seem to think. It simply links to all European articles on a given subject e.g. "Fauna of...", "Parliament of..." and there is no "fix" that I am aware of short of creating an entirely new template that links directly to a given set of named articles. However, it works well enough as "Parliament of the Republic of Ireland" simply redirects to "Oireachtas", so whilst I understand why you think this is less than perfect I don't see any genuine problem in this case in practice. The issue does however create a problem for Scotland that I had not noticed before in that Parliament of Scotland is the historic parliament not the modern one. I'll drop a note to the talk pages concerned. Ben MacDui 11:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably one of those situations where UK only should be used, England has no sort of Parliaments, NI's was dissolved, etc. 12:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit of a mess because of the complex histories of the constituent countries. N Ireland, Scotland and Wales all have modern parliaments (called "assemblies"), and ideally would therefore have links from the template but the only one it takes you direct to currently is the Welsh one. Scotland at least is "fixable" and I have dropped a note at the talk pages concerned. Ben MacDui 12:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP, the links are automatically generated by setting the prefix. If your prefix is "Parliament of", all of the links in the template will be to "Parliament of <country>". As Ben said, the only way to have the navbox link to Oireachtas would be to create a new template where you put the links in manually. I don't see the need for this. Nightw 19:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the prefix be replaced with "Legislature of", or "National legislature of"? It sounds a lot more generic and will help us to redirect to the modern Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, etc. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Above. What is the point of adding entities that simply are not in Europe? All that does is cluttering the template, reducing its already very limited usefulness. Editing Wikipedia navboxes isn't magically going to place locations in Europe that are not in Europe so why bother? Other than the sheer joy of trolling, of course. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Template talk:Asia_topic#Nagorno-Karabakh --> Nagorno-Karabakh_Republic on whether to use Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or Nagorno-Karabakh. Please comment there to help establish a consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(The reason for the question is that currently Asia Topic does it one way and Europe Topic does it the other.) -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the grammatical article "the" with the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom should be triggered by a parameter and standardized. As current, the Isle of Man gets a "the" prepended, disrupting links such as List of Isle of Man-related topics (which currently gets incorrectly set as List of the Isle of Man-related topics), and also disrupting links such as the Judiciary of the United Kingdom (which is incorrectly set as Judiciary of United Kingdom, which I just redirected).

Currently, every single topic would need to redirect at least one. Perhaps a "the" parameter that is always set to "yes" that would trigger a "the" before both, and thus could be disabled (for instance with the "List of" prefix and "-related topics" suffix)? Int21h (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union is another entity which uses an adjective as its first word, usually requiring a "the". Int21h (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please repair the broken link of the Demographics of the Republic of Ireland on the template list. I clicked on the red (missing) link to "Demographics of Republic of Ireland". They are case sensitive and future editing should be more careful when they add links by typing the link correctly. Thank you. + Mike D 26 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After Georgia (country), these Europe templates seem to be putting the word 'country' in brackets for a second time. This results in red links. I could not see where to make an edit to fix this problem. RedvBlue 11:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that problem? I can't find it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here. There could be more to be found, if someone were to go through them all. RedvBlue 13:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Okay, I'm completely lost. Somehow those templates have the problem yet Template:Demographics of Europe doesn't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been playing around with this. From what I can tell, Georgia has an extra "|template=no", which the other countries don't. It's probably there for a reason, so I don't want to remove it in case it harms other templates. RedvBlue 13:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's caused by recent edits from R'n'B, an editor who disambiguates links and who's obviously picking up on the Georgia links on this and other templates. He did the same to this template earlier and I reverted. I've reverted his edits on the two templates you've linked to; if you see he's made the same edit to any others just revert it and link to this discussion. You'd probably have to go through the Asia templates aswell. Nightw 01:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About adding the Republika Srpska to the list with "Dependencies and other territories"... How can he have Faroe Islands, Gibraltar, Guernsey which all of this have minor degree of autonomy and Republika Srpska not? Adrian (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sprska is merely one of two parts of a country. The other entries here have rather unique political statuses that lead to them being classified as dependencies. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We normally use ISO 3166 as the inclusion criteria unless a sufficient reason for inclusion can be provided. It's also a question of whether it'd be a useful link. The only article I can find where a link would appear blue is History of Republika Srpska. But even in that article most of the content is already described in History of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the other hand, for example, topics about Gibraltar are rarely described in the UK articles. Nightw 19:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I would note that the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the Faroes, Gibraltar and Guernsey is hardly "minor" - in fact it's near-complete, rather greater than Vojvodina. ISO 3166-1 is sensible because it is a neat proxy for those articles for which we are likely to have articles. It's clearly defined and easy to implement. On the other hand, listing autonomous areas means we would need to include a vast number of extra entities that in many cases are unlikely to have articles for the topics concerned. Pfainuk talk 22:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could someone fix the link to the climate of Northern Ireland in the sovereign states section under United Kingdom. It is currently pointing to a page which has been overridden to point to the climate of Ireland, however the Northern Ireland Climate page contains specific data for the country, Northern Ireland.Seamus48 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you initiate a discussion with those that originally merged the article before progressing further with it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be added under dependencies? Both Cyprus and Northern Cyprus, and Gibraltar and the Isle of Man are already included. I see no reason why Akrotiri and Dhekelia doesn't belong, either by geography and by political status. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria is loosely based on ISO 3166-1, and not many articles exist about the bases. CMD (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Per above. Celestra (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is its political status as a British dependent territory determined by ISO 3166-1? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but its inclusion in this list is. CMD (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its inclusion should be determined by its political status as one of the BOTs. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? CMD (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

N Not done and not likely to be done; The Ministry of Defence says that the "SBAs are primarily required as military bases and not ordinary dependent territories". Also per CMD's comments, and the fact that they are not very notable. If there is consensus among a group of users, then it can be added. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and IP, please stop adding the edit request template unless you have a consensus for an edit. It just wastes admins' time. Nightw 12:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is to list all dependent territories indiscriminatorily, especially inhabited ones. And no I don't mean to wastes admins' time. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is designed as a basic one for navigation purposes, and few A&D articles exist. The principle of all territories is meant for Template:Sovereign states of Europe. CMD (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've in fact requested to create redirects that point at the economy, demographics and media sections of the main article for this dependency. And some other redirects already existed before I filed my request. (I suppose that's the usual practice for microstates and dependencies with small population size, and as a result few articles.) However few articles this dependency is having, it's still having some articles, such as police, customs, outline, index, etc. I've added the Europe topic template to those articles. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are fine, but the main issue is really notability. We use ISO as an independent third party to establish the notability of a territory. Chances are if it's not on the ISO list, there isn't that much to talk about. A&D is notable for its military, with most of its topics related to that.

That being said, it definitely has notability in some respects. If you can make a strong case for its importance in a certain topic, perhaps we can make a code that shows A&D just for that topic. CMD (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following the example in the article for its police force (which someone else set it before I did), I've added this template to the articles on its customs service and its military. I've also added the template to its index and its outline. Apart from actual articles, many redirects already exist, and I've requested to create the ones for economy, demographics and media to fill the gap. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For redirects? You want the item added for redirects? I don't see the reason for it. They're military bases... How many people reading about the economics of Europe are going to want to know that (according to the economy section of the article) there's basically no economic activity whatsoever on these bases? If the subject is notable in the context of Europe (or Asia), it'll have an article on it, or have the potential for one. In this case, there's really not all that much one can write about media on the bases, since there isn't really any.

Adding it without a switch is just not going to beneficial, since most topics relating to this particular place can be summed up in one sentence along the lines of "there is none". There's no culture, no sport, no organised religion, no literature, no environment/wildlife, and no, the mess kitchens have not invented their own cuisine. Though as Chip says, it might be practical for military topics. Nightw 06:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economy is perhaps an extreme example. It isn't like "there is none" for the sections about the territory's history, politics, geography, and demographics. Yes this territory is most notable as military bases, but there are articles on, for example, its police force and its customs service too. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that for every article covering a topic notable enough to exist, we could probably name 10 common to others that wouldn't be. Again, I wouldn't mind a hack to have an if parameter (as I'm biased and wanted A&D in ages ago!), if that sounds like a good idea to all. Not that I know exactly how to implement one, but c'est la vie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 00:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can use the ifexist code.., like what's currently done for Vatican City. But I don't think that's going to be necessary. We got South Georgia, Christmas Island and Pitcairn Islands on the templates for other continents. They don't create much trouble. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, an extra parameter can be added so that it can appear in cases where it might be needed. I don't really see any cases...{{Military of Europe}} maybe. History? Meh. Most of its history is already covered under History of Cyprus, which already has a link. Nightw 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we now have Sicily and Catalonia automatically appearing on this template? CMD (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. These two 'countries' shouldn't be on this template... I will remove Catalonia, as it definitely shouldn't be there, not too sure about Sicily though. Any ideas what to do? --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 20:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove everything that isn't a state from the state section. Simple and makes sense. CMD (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]