This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Geography This template is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs

I think this template should have an option to exclude individual countries from being displayed. E.g. for maritime topics it doesn't make sense to keep showing redlinks for landlocked countries like Andorra or the Czech Republic. Or, AFAIK, some tiny states like Monaco or San Marino don't have any national parks, but {{Europe topic|List of national parks of|countries_only=yes}} is used on quite a lot of pages. So I could imagine optional parameters like |AD=no to exclude that specific list item. De728631 (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone on for too long. I have no ideal why people must keep adding countries like Armenia, which aren't even close to being in Europe, or Georgia, which has technically a few uninhabited square km in Europe, or Kazakhstan, which perhaps has some minor fraction of its empty steppe in Europe. This is ludicrous, and it simply just spams an already overcrowded template.

If people insist on nitpicking on this level, let them introduce a parameter opting into displaying this stuff. This template is used all over Wikipedia, and it is supposed to be for navigating, not for autistic nitpicking.

See also boundary between Europe and Asia. The classical transcontinental countries are Russia and Turkey. Russia is primarily in Europe but also substantially in Asia. Turkey is primarily in Asia, but also substantially in Europe. I accept that it may make sense to include Turkey here, even though Turkey is clearly and overwhelmingly an Asia country. There can be discussion on this in good faith. There cannot be such discussion regarding Georgia, or Azerbaijan (which may be in Europe to some minor fraction of a percent, but according to some definitions of Europe, 0%), let alone Armenia (which is in Europe to exactly 0%).

Introduce a separate section on countries which are not unambiguously partially in Europe (only according to the most expansive definition). These would include Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Georgia. Then let people opt into displaying them if they feel their article would profit and if the "Europe topic" in question doesn't just show up as redlinks in the first place. --dab (𒁳) 08:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are widely considered to be European countries - for instance by the BBC (see country profiles section at the bottom). They should probably be in both templates, but removing them from this one is a very bad move. Kazakhstan is like Turkey - mostly in Asia, but a small section is considered to be Europe - anything west of the Urals. Number 57 12:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind that my initial request and this whole section is not about the boundary between Europe and Asia. I suggested that we introduce the selective disabling of one or more countries for use in single navboxes. When the topic clearly excludes certain countries there is no need to display redlinks forever (or, e.g. until the Austrian Empire expands to the Mediterranean Sea again...) De728631 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the edit history, you see editors removing England to remove the redlink to "cabinet in England" or I express a wish above to remove Svalbard to remove redlinks to Football in Svalbard or List of supermarket chains in Svalbard, so this template should have an option to remove some countries when transcluded if it shall remain useful. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

England, the largest home nation of the United Kingdom, doesn't have its own parliament and government. The Parliament of England was the legislature of the former independent Kingdom of England and the article "Government of England" redirects to "Governance of England". We needs some treatment for those situations. --Wikipean (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipean: can you be more specific? (1) the particular invocation of this template which is causing problems, (2) with a list of the false links? Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both {{Europe topic|Parliament of}} and {{Europe topic|Parliament of|countries_only=yes}} provide links to the historical Parliament of England and the modern parliaments of Scotland and Northern Ireland at the same time. On this note, I've been advocating separate switches in this template for each country/subdivision for quite a while. De728631 (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parliament of Northern Ireland and Parliament of Scotland are historic as well, just not as historic. adding an optional parameter for each country/state/dependency/other would not be a problem. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the parliaments, and that's already the second problem. The only appropriate link to show would probably be Scottish Parliament but we can't pipe anything in the template. But adding switches like |ENG=no would actually be a great step forward imo. Please see also the section called "Disabling specific countries" above. De728631 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

instead of |ENG=no, my original plan was |ENG= which is cheaper in terms of parserfunctions, but the same basic idea. it would also allow you to input |ENG=[[Some link for England|England]] which is perhaps too much input freedom? so, we could go with |ENG=Some link for England, with blank to mean omitted entirely (although the same parserfunction cost as |ENG=no). Frietjes (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So |ENG= would have to override the standard link to "<Topic> of <country>" that is automatically created by the template. And it should default to no output for that specific country if the parameter is supplied but is left empty. That way we could either supply alternative links or prevent the country from being shown in the final navbox. De728631 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than fiddling around with England specifically, surely a simpler, more consistent, and general solution would be to make the current "UK_only=yes" coding an opt-in rather than opt-out, so it can be activated for those rare events where they UK countries are more relevant than other administrative divisions (sports mostly)? CMD (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good option, but Frietjes and I were also discussing this on a broader level with |ENG= as an example for any entry. De728631 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it should mostly work now. I used the ISO country codes for the parameter names. I only did the Sovereign states section, but can add the rest, I just need the letter codes to use for those. for an example, try {{Europe topic |List of |-related topics|BA=|CZ=|IE=|MK=|NL=}}. Frietjes (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note that |GB= shows unlinked text if |UK_only= is not set. Frietjes (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 letter ISO codes are available for all the dependent territories, AX for Aland, FO for Faroe, GI for Gibraltar, GG for Guernsey, JE for Jersey, IM for Isle of Man, SJ for Svalbard. EU is for the EU. If if doesn't have to be 2 letters, I suggest SMOM for the Knights of Malta. Unrecognised countries may have to be written out in full. CMD (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I added all of those, including SMOM. all we need now are some short codes for the six states with limited recognition. Frietjes (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have to go a bit into OR here, but I suppose it doesn't matter for our own template coding. For Abkhazia perhaps AB or ABH. AB is an unassigned ISO code, and their number plates have a cyrillic version of AB, along with ABH in Latin. Kosovo uses RKS on its numberplates. Alternatively if two letter is preferred, KS is unassigned and fits RKS well, but it seems 3 letters would be easier for these countries, and it highlights the difference. South Ossetia uses RSO on its numberplates. I'd suggest PMR for Transnistria, and NKR for Nagorno-Karabakh, as they're rather standard 3-letter abbreviations for those countries. Northern Cyprus is often abbreviated as TRNC, but NCY seems to be an obvious 3 letter abbreviation, adding N to the Cyprus CY code. CMD (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. Thanks a lot, Frietjes. Can please also update the documentation page, preferable the section about "Disabling dependencies and other territories"? De728631 (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

mostly done here. feel free to copyedit/clarify what I wrote. I still need to add the limited recognition ones, but it's mostly there. Frietjes (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's awesome. Would you mind adding the same feature at {{European topic}} too? De728631 (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

okay, added the feature to that one as well. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I remove just England and just from the Governments template? (There is no Government of England). Thom2002 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the documentation page. To remove any particular entity from the navbox, you enter the territory's name parameter without any input. The parameter for England is |ENG= so you should use {{Europe topic|Government of|ENG=}}. De728631 (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks De728631. Sorry if I'm being terrifically dense, but doesn't that mean I'd have to change every article that calls the Governments of Europe template? Is there no way to disable this in the template code itself? Thanks Thom2002 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, re-reading the documentation it looks like I would be better off making a new template specifically for Governments of Europe based on this one. Thom2002 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, this template is just a shell that can be used to create all kinds of navboxes for a lot of different topics concerning the states of Europe, and that's why individual links have to be disabled for individual uses. As tedious as it may be you'll have to go through each page where the governments navbox is being used. But I just discovered {{Government of Europe}} which does the job you're looking for. It seems that it's not being used in a few articles where it should be, so all you'll have to do is replace the original "Europe topic" at some pages. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ace, thanks. Thom2002 (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding CMD's comment in the previous section: I think it's a good idea to hide England, Wales, Scotland and NI from the template by default and change the {{{UK_only}}} parameter to display them only if specified. The UK's constituent "countries" aren't countries in the same sense as the other listed countries; they're the first-level administrative divisions of the UK, despite being called "countries" and having their own teams at several sports. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SILENCE and WP:BOLD, I've changed the template to exclude the UK's constituent countries unless the |UK_only= parameter is set to "no". This template doesn't seem to be used very frequently in sports articles anyway. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it used often in sports articles this feature is used widely elsewhere - see e.g. Fauna of Ireland, Geology of Russia, Religion in Denmark. Ben MacDui 11:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's existence by default does not make it used. Aside from sport, there's very little to make the UKs subdivisions unique when compared to those of other countries. CMD (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you think the links to the four CCs are necessary/relevant in these articles? The articles Fauna of the United Kingdom, Geology of the United Kingdom and Religion in the United Kingdom all exist. Readers who want to know about the fauna of England or religions in Scotland can visit these articles and follow the links to the respective articles.

In most articles in which this template is used, links to Wales or England are as relevant as links to Flanders or Catalonia, as the four CCs are just subdivisions of the UK (the designation of "country" doesn't change that). Sports-related articles are some of the few exceptions, as England, Scotland, NI and Wales have separate nationalities and national teams in many sports. Because sports articles form only a very small part of the transclusions of {{Europe topic}} (most use navboxes not based on this one), I think the links to the CCs should be hidden by default (though they can still be enabled using a parameter). SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you might imagine this topic has been discussed at length in the past. An issue of significance is that this is the English language 'pedia - it therefore follows that not only is coverage of topics related to this language more extensive than elsewhere but also that the readership is more likely to be interested in them than say readers of the French of German versions. In practice then, links to Wales or England are more likely to be relevant compared to links to Flanders or Catalonia. Given this long-standing arrangement and the large number of transclusions I really think there should provide an RfC or similar rather than imagining a short discussion here will garner much input. Ben MacDui 11:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many readers of the English WP that are from (or interested in) the US. Does that mean that the fifty U.S. states should be listed separately at {{North America topic}}? The UK's "countries" aren't any different from the U.S. states, the Australian states, or the Canadian provinces, with sports being one of the few exceptions in which they are. As CMD asked one year and a half ago (see Discussion 4 linked below), why would the inclusion criteria of this template be based on assumptions of the interests of readers, rather than on political status?

I've read through this talk page's three archives and found several discussions about the CCs:

• The first discussed the original addition of the CCs to the template, but doesn't mention whether they should be visible by default;
• The second noted the addition of the "UK_only" parameter to hide the CCs, but didn't get any replies;
• The third questioned whether the CCs should be removed from the template, with the reply that they shouldn't because the template is used in sporting contexts (but again didn't ask whether they should be enabled by default);
• The fourth introduced a multiple-choice debate with the question whether the CCs should be kept, removed, put in parentheses, or accompanied by other countries' subdivisions, but only five users voted, and no option got more than two votes.

None of these discussions are actually about the question whether the four CCs should be disabled by default, and none can be considered discussions "at length". If this is such a big issue that affects many articles, an RfC may be suitable, though I don't think there are many articles for which it really matters if the CCs are removed (and articles for which it does matter can still display them by adding |UK_only=no). SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think there are many articles for which it really matters if the CCs are removed" - is fair comment but it's just an opinion, and I hold the opposite. There are about 8,500 transclusions, so how are we to know the views of the editors whose work your proposal would affect without asking them? You are quite right that the default display can altered but to do so would be a huge task and would most likely precipitate further discussion of this nature on a large number of other talk pages unless this is approached properly. To look at the issue from the opposite angle, do we know how many transclusions are amended from the existing default? This might give us some idea of the current views of editors using the template.

This may be something of an "academic" debate but the UK's countries really are different from the U.S. states in some important ways, especially (for three of them) their long history as independent nations. More broadly the Euro template itself is be-devilled by the geopolitical issues that comes with this history. An outcome that displays San Marino and Andorra, Armenia and the Isle of Man but not Scotland or England seems to me to be likely to inhibit rather than enhance reader's access to useful information about European topics. Ben MacDui 12:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may inhibit in that readers can not directly jump to Geology of Scotland from Geology of Denmark, but it is no more inhibiting than being unable to jump to the Geology of Naples or the Geology of Barvaria. Europe is chock-full of areas with long histories as independent nations, and so using this as a reason to include the UK CC doesn't hold unless it's also applied to, say, the states of Germany, or regions of Italy (states formed from many smaller historical units). Giving more prominence to the subdivisions of just one modern state is exactly the sort of thing WP:Systematic bias is about. CMD (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 7,700 articles that link to this template (not counting the 800 transclusions in other namespaces), 3,200 transclude {{Europe topic}} directly. The other 4,500 each transclude one of about one hundred "specialized" templates based on {{Europe topic}}, and can be changed to display the CCs (if needed) by editing these templates.

In addition, many of the 3,200 direct transclusions link to the same pages. It won't be hard to have a bot replace these with specialized templates so only a few hundred pages use direct transclusions. I don't even think more than one hundred pages need to be changed now, as there are few topics in which linking to the CCs but not to other countries' subdivisions wouldn't be plain systemic bias per CMD's comment. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this may be true but my position remains that I don't think it's appropriate to change a long-term consensus that affects a large number of articles on the basis of input from a tiny handful of editors. Ben MacDui 15:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I suspect their inclusion is due to arguments over the word country which was used in this template back in the day. SiBr4, do you want to propose an RfC based on the coding you made? CMD (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is a good way to get more people to know about the proposed change, but I'm still not convinced the change will genuinely inhibit navigation in more than a few articles until these are updated. Also, what would be discussed in an RFC on this issue? A general discussion on whether the template should display the CCs seems to me likely to get good-faith but (semi-)nationalistic comments rather than comments that actually add anything to this discussion (but that's just my forecast). SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see we are of similar mind - in that I too anticipate a gloomy outcome consisting primarily of the usual Celtophobia - but we won't know unless we ask. Ben MacDui 16:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC's are for thoughts, not necessarily for consensus. Perhaps ask something along the lines of, how large should this template be, should the British CCs be included for sports, if so should this be default enabled for all other uses of the template, and should any other areas be included? It covers the general points that some previous discussions did, but that should be useful for context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't started any RfC's yet, though I think it's best to stick to the main question of "should the CCs be visible by default", rather than to turn it into a general discussion about the template's inclusion criteria (new questions/issues may emerge and be discussed as well). If both of you agree an RfC should be held, I'll try to write a header text and post it here. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the wider questions as I feel it is likely that not having a single point will result in fewer kneejerk reactions of the kind you and Ben noted might overtake the RfC. No objections to an RfC from me at any rate, of whatever form you prefer. CMD (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any bad-faith nationalistic comments can be removed, hidden or just ignored; good-faith but unintentionally nationalistic comments of the likes of "they should be kept because they're countries" can probably be easily refuted. What might help preventing such comments is to discuss both the template's inclusion criteria in general and the CCs in particular (though that's essentially what you proposed). As Ben noted, we won't know unless we ask – maybe there won't be so many unhelpful comments and it's just our prejudice. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no comments about the possible RfC on this issue for two weeks and a half, I'll start writing the intro text in a few days. SiBr₄ (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis and Ben MacDui: Can someone please check the proposed statement for neutrality and correct English? Also, I'm not entirely sure yet which (or how many) questions should be asked specifically. My local draft for the RfC has two subsections: "Topics in which the CCs are relevant" and "General discussion". Do you have any other suggestions? If not I'll move this to a new section and activate the RfC. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning bit is a tad short, which I suppose is because you're trying to keep the question concise and neutral. This is a good idea, however if that is the case it may be better to simply say "The reasoning for this expanded upon in my initial comment below" or something similar, and do so in a comment. This gives both a short hopefully non-leading question, and a clearer explanation of reasoning in the comment section. CMD (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the "The reason for this change..." sentence is a good summary of the reason why the CCs should be omitted by default. What the rare cases in which they are more relevant than other countries' subdivisions are would be discussed in the "Topics in which the CCs are relevant" section (I have separate short intro texts for each section in my draft). SiBr₄ (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good concise summary, I simply don't think it's the best way to present the RfC. I don't oppose because of it though. CMD (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then what exactly would you change? SiBr₄ (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I said above. I'd leave the argument to this first comment. Up to you of course, it doesn't make or break the RfC. I'm happy if you want to go ahead with this. CMD (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case the RfC concludes with the change being reinstated, since I now have access to AWB, I can quickly add |UK_only=no to pages it is agreed to list the CCs on. This addresses Ben MacDui's concern that "to do so would be a huge task". SiBr₄ (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still awaiting a reply by Ben MacDui. I'm now pinging him for the third time since I wrote the above statement, though he may just have his mention notifications turned off. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I don't support the proposal I am not intending to comment on the RfC's wording or relating matters. Ben MacDui 08:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why not (both supporters and opposers commenting on the statement helps make it neutral), though if you don't have anything to say, I suppose I can activate this RfC. SiBr₄ (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful if I suggested that you replace "My proposed change is to reverse this behaviour", which to me has a slightly pejorative tone, with "My proposed change is to reverse this long-standing consensus"? Ben MacDui 17:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would, though I'm not sure there is actually a consensus in favor of the current situation regarding the CCs. It has been the way it is since December of 2007, but the option of disabling of the CCs by default was never discussed before (all of the previous discussions I listed above, except the one with no replies, were mainly about keeping or removing them entirely). Does WP:SILENCE apply or do you think there is a consensus for a different reason? SiBr₄ (talk) 18:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand though that "behaviour" may imply that it's agreed that the current situation is bad and should be changed. I'll reword the text. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After another 2½ weeks, I've changed the RfC a bit again and activated it (see below. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be added the Catalonia topics (Template:Catalonia topics). It could be add in the fourth category, Dependencies and other territories, or in parentheses after Spain, like Wales or Scotland topics. Clairó (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. If we add Catalonia we should also add the rest of the 17 autonomous communities of Spain. And in my opinion that would only clutter up the Europe navbox. Apart from that there is already the specifically Catalonian navbox you've linked above. I think this needs further discussion before we implement it. De728631 (talk) 08:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Not every autonomous communities of Spain have the same political status, there are some historical regions, such as Catalonia, Basque Country or Valencia, which are considered historical nationalities (nacionalidad histórica) in the Spanish Constitution and their Autonomy Statues. In addition, that historical regions have their own culture, language and topics, altohugh they are in Spain don't share the same topics with Castile. This doesn't happen in the rest of 17 autonomous communities of Spain, and specifically Catalonia is holding a self-determination referendum in 2014. I think the easiest way is add Catalonia in parentheses after Spain, like Scotland template. --Clairó (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK sums it up in the list, so Scotland, England etc. should go out. I suggest removing them. Or do you actually intend to write own lists for these? -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections above this one, it is discussed whether the constituent countries of the UK should be hidden from the template by default. This would mean they are not visible in most cases but can still be activated using a parameter. The discussion seems kind of stale though. SiBr₄ (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Horst-schlaemma: Only now I see you were referring to a specific usage of this template (lists of spa towns). This template is used to create navboxes for many more topics. To remove the UK's countries from the template in specific articles, add the parameter |UK_only=yes (which in the linked article was already done). SiBr₄ (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thank you. Sorry I didn't realise where my request went to. ;) Ahoi Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the {{Europe topic}} navbox template shows the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom or CCs (England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales) in brackets next to the UK. There is a parameter |UK_only= available which hides them from the template if set to anything. This has been how the template works since 6 December 2007, when the UK_only parameter was added (see below for a detailed timeline).

My proposed change is to reverse the behavior of the UK_only parameter and hide the CCs from the template by default. They could still be activated by setting the |UK_only= parameter to "no" (not allowing just any text prevents pages already using |UK_only=yes from showing the CCs). A comparison of the current and proposed versions of the template can be seen at my sandbox.

The change was boldly made, reverted as "no consensus" and discussed a few months ago, with the main objection that a template transcluded on thousands of articles shouldn't be changed on the basis of a discussion by three editors. The purpose of this RfC is therefore to get more people to know about the proposed change and to discuss it and its consequenses community-wide (though not necessarily to know how many people support or oppose it). SiBr₄ (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of research of the relevant changes made to the template:

• 2 December 2005: Template created by Warofdreams without the CCs.
• 5 December 2006: CCs introduced with show_UK_countries parameter by David Kernow; template could optionally show the CCs by setting the parameter.
• 11 September 2007: show_UK_countries parameter removed by Barryob; the template would now always show the CCs without an option to remove them.
• 6 December 2007: UK_only parameter introduced by Rich Farmbrough (current situation)
• 29 December 2013: Proposed change made by me; reverted one day afterwards by Ben MacDui.

None of these changes (except the last) have been discussed specifically. Four discussions about the CCs can be found in the archives of this talk page, though none discussed the option I'm proposing. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any topics in which listing the CCs in the template is necessary, or in which the CCs are otherwise reasonably more relevant than the subdivisions of other states? Feel free to add a new subsection to discuss the CCs' relevance in particular topics. A list of all transclusions of the template, listing direct and indirect transclusions separately, can be found at User:SiBr4/AWB Reports#Template:Europe topic (warning: 350-kB page).

Note that the mere existence of an article "X of England" etc. doesn't mean by itself that the four CCs are relevant for topic X, as readers should be able to find these articles via "X of the United Kingdom". SiBr₄ (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing the trancluded Europe topic areas should be the very starting point of the conversation. If England/Scotland/Wales/NI are relevant in many of these topics then this proposal is a non-starter. Alternatively, this may show that these sub-countries are not broadly relevant to Europe topic areas. I've done a rough splice of SiBr4's data to come up with what topics this proposal will affect. I think a rationale not based on the reach of these topics would not be a very well thought through one. SFB 19:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I replaced all instances of {{Europe topic}} in "<year> in <country>" articles (#1) with the new template {{Year in Europe}}. I should generate an updated list when I have time (AWB can do it automatically, but it takes a few hours). SiBr₄ (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is probably the main reason why the CCs should be available in the first place, I'm starting it myself. In a number of sports, England, Wales and Scotland compete as seperate Home Nations, having their competitions and/or national teams. Northern Ireland either competes separately as the fourth Home Nation or joins the Republic of Ireland.

There are only a few sports articles which transclude {{Europe topic}}; most sports articles use navboxes built from scratch. Sports-related navboxes that do transclude {{Europe topic}} include {{Football in Europe}}, {{Sport in Europe}} and {{Women's football in Europe}}. Of the articles that transclude {{Europe topic}} directly, sports-related prefixes used commonly include "Ice hockey in ...", "List of football clubs in ...", "List of football stadiums in ...", "Rugby union in ..." and "Sports broadcasting contracts in ...". SiBr₄ (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does vary very significantly from sport to sport. In the Olympics and most (but not all) Olympic sports, the sporting federations are UK-wide and there is one UK team. Major sports such as cycling, tennis and athletics know no boundaries between UK home nations, except during the Commonwealth Games (where all four home nations send separate teams). In other cases there is a split, but it is not a three-way split between England, Scotland and Wales. In cricket, for example, England and Wales are combined and Scotland is separate. In basketball, England and Scotland are combined and Wales is separate. In Northern Ireland's case, there are very few sports that treat Northern Ireland as separate from both the UK and (the Republic of) Ireland.

Dunno how much difference this makes in practice, if most sports don't use this template anyway. Kahastok talk 22:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know there were also sports in which combinations of England & Wales and England & Scotland compete, though there is certainly a fairly large number of sports that don't know of a UK team (football/soccer is the only one I can come up with). Note that the British Olympic team is called "Great Britain" but does represent the entire UK. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kahastok: Do you know whether the CCs have separate teams in the sports I mentioned? They do in football, but do they in ice hockey and rugby union? Also, do you think they should be listed in the general "Sports in ..." and "Sports broadcasting contracts in ..." templates? SiBr₄ (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Rugby Union has three separate GB teams (England, Scotland and Wales), but the Ireland team includes both sides of the border. Every four years the four teams come together to play as the British and Irish Lions - but like the Commonwealth Games this is the exception and most matches are separate teams.

In ice hockey, there is a single UK team. As in many cases where there is a UK/Ireland split, Northern Irish ice hockey players can choose to represent Ireland instead.

Sports broadcasting contracts are generally UK-wide since most broadcasters are UK-wide. The big exceptions are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish football and rugby rights, which can more than adequately covered by the existing Sports broadcasting contracts in the United Kingdom.

As to "Sports in ..." articles - well, most of it is actually covered by Sport in the United Kingdom, and it's difficult to see what the individual countries are going to say on non-split sports (such as cycling or athletics) that is not already covered in the UK-wide article. And I see a lot of duplicated content between the articles. Personally, I would just link to Sports in the United Kingdom, which provides links to the other articles and to more focussed articles (such as Rugby Union in Wales, for example). In my view the separate links are best used in cases where there is a complete split with little common ground: Education in the United Kingdom is little more than a dab page, for example, so we're better off linking to the four home nations articles. Kahastok talk 19:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this because {{Europe topic}} is transcluded directly on about 350 "<Year> in <Country>" articles, with years ranging from 1199 to 2014. England (then including Wales) and Scotland were independent countries before the Acts of Union 1707, which would mean they should be shown on the pre-1707 year articles. However, since no-one attempted to add any other historical countries in Europe to the template AFAIK, I think the usage of {{Europe topic}} in these articles has to be reconsidered. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now working on a new template in which the list of countries depends on the input year using parser functions. This template can replace {{Europe topic}} in the year articles when it's done. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it doesn't contain all former countries yet (the many states in modern Italy still need to be added), I've moved the template to template namespace. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many religious bodies have separate national organisations for these countries.--MacRùsgail (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In navboxes about national religious organizations that may be a reason to list them, though as I said below, I'm not sure whether general "Religion in ..." articles should include the CCs because of the separate national organizations. There is an article on Religion in the United Kingdom with information about religion statewide, which links to the articles for the separate countries in a hatnote. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still not getting it, are you? Scotland is treated as a different country in Presbyterianism, Anglicanism, Methodism, Congregationalism, Roman Catholicism, the baptist movement and others that don't immediately spring to mind. Smaller organisations such as the Mormons, Bahais and Scientologists don't treat Scotland separately, but they generally subsume the Republic of Ireland under the same regional organisation, for numerical reasons. The "religion in the United Kingdom" is not a helpful starting point for religion in Scotland for a number of different reasons. (Not least for the fact that writers of such articles tend to be ignorant of the highly complex religious history of Scotland. And when I say it is complex, it is extremely complex!)

By the way, your claim that Scotland has been a country for a shorter time than Sicily is highly questionable.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article Kingdom of Scotland, it existed between the 9th century and 1707 (when the Kingdom of Great Britain was formed), which is 864 years using the starting year of 843 given in the lead. The Emirate, County, and Kingdom of Sicily together existed for 985 years according to their articles (from 831 until the unification with Naples in 1816). Note that modern Scotland is still called a "country" but I use the word to refer to sovereign states only.

I am not religious and trust you in that what you're saying is correct. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The origins of Scotland are hazy. (Sicily is more neatly defined perhaps, being an island). Some people trace it back to Dál_Riata which is far earlier. -MacRùsgail (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think it's a touch more complicated than that. Check, for example Anglican Communion#Province and you will see that for the Anglican Church, while Scotland is undoubtedly separated from England, most of the rest of Europe isn't (it is covered by the English Diocese in Europe). Kahastok talk 19:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's down to numbers. There aren't many Anglicans in most of Continental Europe. However, the Roman Catholic church also treats Scotland separately, and that has significant presence in nearly of all of Western Europe, and to a lesser extent in the east as well.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 158 articles and project pages about religion that transclude the template directly. There are also the following specialized templates that use {{Europe topic}}:

1. Template:Buddhism in Europe
2. Template:Christianity in Europe
3. Template:Hinduism in Europe
4. Template:History of Christianity in Europe
5. Template:Islam by country horizontal
6. Template:Islam in Europe
7. Template:Jews and Judaism in Europe
8. Template:List of mosques
9. Template:Orthodox Christianity in Europe
10. Template:Religion in Europe
11. Template:Roman Catholicism in Europe

Including pages that transclude these templates, that's a total of 569 religion-related transclusions, or about one fifteenth of all transclusions. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the number of transclusions in which the CCs should and shouldn't be listed, do you support the proposed change? Should it be implemented in another way, or with another parameter name? Should the CCs maybe be removed from the template entirely?

• As proposer I'd like to explain why I'm proposing this change. Despite the designation of "country", the CCs are subdivisions of the UK and are rarely more relevant than other countries' subdivisions. There is no difference in political status between Wales and Wallonia, or between Northern Ireland and North Dakota. So unless all European countries' subdivisions are added to the template (which I don't think anyone would want), there's no reason to give the UK's subdivisions more prominence. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support change. There's no reason to give UK countries greater prominence than the constituent parts of many other entities in most cases. This is systemic bias favouring the UK countries, and the name used by the UK does not make any difference. Where there is a good reason for a split, we can set the parameter. Kahastok talk 22:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change. I agree with Kahastok. — Petr Matas 04:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging CMD and Ben MacDui as they commented in the discussion above. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Some sub-national units have greater autonomy than the British home nations, so I agree that it is silly to separate them out (especially when in many cases England and Wales function as one). Number 57 12:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No reason to treat the UK differently. Int21h (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Supoort No reason to make an exception for the UK. If the template remained as it is, we would have to do the same for Germany, Austria and Italy as well because they use to refer to their subdivisions as "Länder" which translates to "Countries". (In Italy, use of the word "Länder" is limited to the German-speaking part of the country, but it is still official.) The swiss cantons would have to be regarded as the swiss equivalent of a CC as well because they hold all competences which haven't been transferred to the federal government (including the Kompetenzkompetenz). However, I think that the option to include the CCs selectively in some articles should remain in order to accomodate those odd contexts where the CCs are actually treated as seperate entities. -- Dynam1te3 (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal Functionally, Northern Ireland is no different than (e.g.) Alabama in many contexts. There is a lot of special pleading about the UK based on the fact that some of the constituents were independent at one point (which is true about all kinds of subnational divisions—cf. California, Texas, and Vermont in the States) and that they use the word "country" which is patently silly and inconsistent anyway (again, re: Northern Ireland). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A particularly inept proposal given Scotland's independence referendum this year. There are actually a surprising number of instances where Scotland and Wales are treated as countries in their own right (England and NI less often - England tends to represent itself as British)-MacRùsgail (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MacRusgail: If Scotland actually becomes independent in September (which doesn't seem very likely looking at the polls), the template will be adjusted so Scotland is shown separately, but if the rest of the UK keeps the same structure, this proposal still applies to the remaining three CCs. Sorry if this sounds a bit rude, but outside of sports contexts, saying Scotland is a country in the same sense as e.g. Serbia implies either nationalism or unawareness that not all countries are countries. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which poll you look at. The result will be tight. However, you, and many others on this poll clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. Scotland is a country for a NUMBER of different purposes. I've mentioned religion, which is yet another thing that you've overlooked, or not bothered to look at.-MacRùsgail (talk) 11:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the results of the polls are; treating Scotland differently from the other three CCs because it may become an independent country in September is premature. I didn't claim to have investigated every possible topic; if you think they are considered separate national entities in specific topics, please create a new subsection for these topics in the section above this one. In the particular case of religion; while Religion in the United Kingdom makes clear there are separate religious organizations for the CCs or combinations like England & Wales or Great Britain, I'm not sure whether that's a reason to list them separately in navboxes about religion in general. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment; didn't notice you already did so. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that anyone is arguing that the opt-in cannot be activated on any article where consensus deems it appropriate. Kahastok talk 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The current arrangement is systematic bias and the change will still have the option to show the CCs where needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, agree that the current arrangement furthers a systemic bias that gives undue prominence to English-speaking subdivisions. All kinds of countries have autonomous entities which are functionally treated as countries in their own right; Crimea, for example, is technically an autonomous republic, yet it doesn't appear in this navbox.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Underlying lk Then why not include Crimea instead of knocking out the other countries? Crimea surely comes under disputed entities, or soon will be. I would back the inclusion of autonomous republics in Russia such as Daghestan and Mordova as well, and the major entities in the Spanish state such as Catalonia and the Basque Country.-MacRùsgail (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea is indeed currently disputed, but the intended argument also applies to other autonomous entities like Gagauzia, Vojvodina and Nakhchivan. The republics of Russia aren't fully autonomous. The subdivisions of Spain are called "autonomous communities", but I doubt they are actually autonomous in the same way as e.g. Vojvodina, and that Catalonia and Basque Country actually have a separate status from the other ones. If every single European subdivision was added to the template, it would become unmanageable. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again why this dislike of small nations beyond the British Isles? The Catalans and Basques are obvious nations, whereas Vojvodina is a border area between Serbia and Hungary with the attendant problems.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is a major difference between Northern Ireland and North Dakota. The sub-divisions in the UK have distinct national identities and long histories, with many separate and distinct features that would be much harder to access with this change.--SabreBD (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would the same argument not equally apply to Bavaria, the Basque Country, Brittany or any one of a large number of other cases in Europe alone? Kahastok talk 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the Basque Country etc are treated with such contempt in this discussion. -MacRùsgail (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So have many other areas in Europe, for example many parts of modern Italy and Spain have. Sicily has been a country for way longer than England and Scotland, so why don't we add that too? Since I replaced the uses of this template in the year articles, virtually no transclusions link to history articles, so I don't consider that a reason to list the CCs in all usages of this template. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are levels of degree here no doubt, but if you ask a Bavarian their nationality they are most likely to say German. Ask a Scotsman that question. Historically Germans and Italians, by and large, retained a German or a Italian national identity, long before their states were unified.--SabreBD (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask me why there's so much more nationalism in Scotland than in Bavaria, though I don't see why exactly that would be relevant to this proposal. I'm sure there are also people from Scotland who recognize that their country is part of the UK and would answer "British" to your question (which legally is the only correct answer). SiBr₄ (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting tacit admission that something is different here. Stating that the legal position is what it is ignores the fact that it was not always the case. Scotland was politically separate from England before 1707 in the case of Scotland and that it never ceased to be a separate nation with separate institutions in law, education and religion and that, regardless of the independence issue, it has a devolved parliament, which has created more diversion with England. All that partly answers the issue about why there is more clear national identity in Scotland. I also think that although it might be possible to solve the date article problem, I do not at the moment see how to solve the problem of separate institutions or themed articles where there were or are not common to the UK, but I would be interested to hear any suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Scotland was actually a country before 1707, but so were many other states that no-one argues should be added to the templates too. Scotland has its own parliament, but it's dependent on the British parliament and not sovereign. There is no clear definition of a "national identity", but it's not relevant to Scotland's political status. In law, education and religion Scotland may be considered a separate country (I don't know whether it is), but that's better discussed in the section for specific topics above. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think similar cases could be made in several other instances. And it could not be made of other parts of the UK.

Let's compare Catalonia with one of the other UK countries - Wales (chosen because it's a closer parallel). Aragón - based in Catalonia - was independent significantly more recently than Wales was. It has its own devolved parliament with significantly more power than the Welsh Assembly, and its own separate language. Aragón's separate institutions were abolished in the eighteenth century - as were Wales' separate institutions in the sixteenth century. Ask someone from Catalonia what their nationality is, chances are good that they'll say "Catalan". Why should Wales be included by default, but not Catalonia?

As to the final point, I believe that the proposal is to change the current opt-out system into an opt-in system. At present, E/S/W/NI are included unless a choice is made to exclude. If this goes through, they would be excluded unless a choice is made to include. Articles where it is genuinely useful to separate could maintain the separate links. Kahastok talk 21:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed is. Currently the CCs are included unless the UK_only parameter is set; my proposal is to include them only if the UK_only parameter is set. The question "Should the CCs maybe be removed from the template entirely?" at the top of this section was more like a suggestion for what to discuss in this section; I'm okay with it if they can optionally be included for some topics in which they are actually relevant. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with that substantive point. If I am assured that they can be included where appropriate then I would be willing to withdraw my opposition. Of course at some point we might want to consider what is an appropriate article. I think it could only be on a case by case basis and there is a question of how many of the CC would need articles for it to be valid to show all four.--SabreBD (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the existence of articles on a particular topic for all four CCs doesn't automatically mean they should be linked to in the template. Unless they are actually considered independent entities in that topic, it's better to link to the UK article only and have that link to the articles for the CCs, like would be done for other countries and their subdivisions. SiBr₄ (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much the position I feared. In that case, for what it is worth, I will maintain my position of opposition.--SabreBD (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per arguments given. There's no common differentiator that separates them from all other European subdivisions. Furthermore, they're all individually toggleable at the moment, so the UK=only parameter might be worth dropping altogether, given the template can otherwise be tailored to different situations, like those of the various sports discussed above. An optin/optout change would probably have to be made to the individual toggles however. CMD (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing them by default using their respective toggles is as easy as removing the diamonds so the default value of the ENG, SCT, WLS and NIR parameters is nothing. Though if that's done, then the exact pages they link to must be specified in order to include them: {{Europe topic|ENG=Topic of England|SCT=Topic of Scotland|WLS=Topic of Wales|NIR=Topic of Northern Ireland}}. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are a number. Not only in sport and mainstream religion, but in the organisation of various different societies and organisations, and also in arts organisations and many other fields. This isn't "nationalist sentiment", it is fact. Those who are questioning this whole thing are clearly confusing autonomy with national status, even before devolution, Scotland had national status in a number of areas. After devolution that case is stronger still.-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't see anyone here arguing that the flag cannot be used on any article where it is deemed appropriate by consensus. The question is not whether a split should be allowed - it will be regardless - it is whether a split should be the default. Kahastok talk 09:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no reason to separate out UK countries by default, so long as they can be separated out optionally. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the concise reason given by Jonathan Oldenbuck. There's a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, at least England, Scotland and Wales, and, on the other hand, North Dakota, Bavaria, my home state of Western Australia, etc. The former are countries that, while part of a union of countries, also continue to function as separate countries for at least some purposes. By contrast, the latter are states or provinces, none of which, eg, competes in its own right in sporting contests between countries. So it's appropriate both for the default position to be UK only, and for the constitutient countries of the UK to be optionally separable for situations where they function separately. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As is traditional in these Wikipedia discussions, I see no one has bothered to actually take this to the WikiProjects concerned. God forbid we might actually get some people on this discussion who do know the difference between an American state and a "CC".-MacRùsgail (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is appropriate to ask whether these WikiProject notifications: [1][2][3][4] and this individual notification: [5] are appropriate according to WP:CANVASS. I note that the latter individual has been previously active here and was pinged a the start of this discussion. Kahastok talk 09:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not in the spirit of canvass. There's also no attempt to notify wikiprojects from the other countries in the template and various subdivisions that have previously been asked to be inserted here, although that's >50 notifications, which is not a small task. CMD (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that notifying some WikiProjects saying "Some Scottish/Welsh/Northern Irish input is desperately needed" without asking at the England, UK and Europe projects is an itself desperate attempt to gain more "oppose" votes and agree that it may be considered canvassing. I didn't notify any WikiProjects or specific users on their talk pages, but the notice I added to the template itself puts a link to the RfC on all 8,700 transclusions (I didn't know whether that's appropriate, but no-one reverted saying it wasn't). SiBr₄ (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. I didn't tell anyone to vote a particular way. The fact that you describe this as 'an itself desperate attempt to gain more "oppose" votes' suggests that you yourself have an issue in this direction. You are obviously concerned that a wider range of opinions would undermine any manufactured consensus that you manage to set up. Why else would you be so worried about it? You should have notified all of these projects yourself before doing this, but like so many people on Wikipedia, you prefer to operate in obscurity. -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC) p.s. You'll notice that I did not go to a number of other WikiProjects of relevance to this. But you didn't either.[reply]

Notifying certain WikiProjects and users and posting biased notifications ("some Scottish/Welsh/Irish/Northern Irish input is desperately needed") in order to influence the result of the RfC is canvassing. Notifying related WikiProjects and involved users at all isn't obliged; also, with a link to this page from 8,700 other pages this RfC is hardly "obscure". SiBr₄ (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It wasn't broken, and although Jonathan Oldenbuck gives a concise overview of the advantage of the proposal, my suspicion is that attempts to enact this are likely to lead to yet more fairly pointless discussion and controversy. Ben MacDui 19:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: "It's not broken" may be a reason not to make a change, but if the new version isn't broken either, the exact same argument applies to reverting back. If this proposal proceeds and someone comes to the talk page to ask why England, Wales, Scotland and NI aren't included (and somehow misses this discussion), we should teach them that they aren't countries in the same way as France, Sweden etc. rather than pretend that they are. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per reasons above, and decry the bad faith claims of certain opposers that the only reason to support the proposal is ignorance of "the difference between an American state and a CC." There are a few specific cases where England/Wales/Scotland/NI do indeed act as separate countries - mostly sports - but that is the exception, not the rule, so the default should be changed. For the vast majority of "Europe" topics, calling them out as separate makes as much sense as calling out Spanish Autonomous Communities as separate. SnowFire (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified Support, though there's a lot of technical knowledge required to understand the issues; I've created a number of "List of ... in Wales" articles and hope they don't disappear by default from the templates!! In certain areas, particularly sport, England/Scotland/Wales/NI have a fairly unique status in Europe (I've no knowledge of a Bavaria, Pays Basque or Catalonia football team, for example). As this is the English language Wikipedia there will be a larger number editors ready to create England/Scotland/Wales/NI subpages. But outside of a small number of topics there's less likelihood for the requirement for E/S/W/NI subgrouping, so I guess overall the change will result in less template clutter.

Qualified support because I think there's an element of double standards. Why not hide the states with limited recognition too? After all, Crimea is a small dependent part of Ukraine/Russia. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, support without much input from the relevant WikiProjects, which you have deliberately avoided doing. Also your attempt to pit Wales against Catalonia, doesn't get to the root of the problem. Why should both be excluded because you disagree with the presence of one? By the way, there WAS a Catalonia rugby side, but Franco abolished it.

I don't know why you are so against the inclusion of this various areas (over and beyond the CCs). Don't hide the states with limited recognition. Don't hide the CCs, and don't let your one size fits all mentality overrule everything else.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that addressed at me? Strange if it is, I came here from WikiProject Wales. I'm not proposing the change, or pitting anyone against anyone else. Maybe your comment needs to be moved to the correct place? Sionk (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MacRùsgail used your comment to "prove" that few people oppose the proposal because of the "fact" that I "deliberately avoided" sending a message to related WikiProjects. I use that many quotation marks because I think that's pretty ridiculous. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your own comments, you seemed to view the idea with concern, which is presumably partly why you did not do it. Logically, you should have spread the message a bit more widely, and not criticised me when I did. There are a number of other places I could have gone as well. Not just the likes of the Manx project page, but the French and the Russian ones.

Any proposal such as this should be widely publicised in the relevant areas, rather than done on the quiet as you have attempted to do.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MacRusgail: Not sending any notifications is not forbidden, but canvassing is. Is there any other good reason for notifying only the WikiProjects of the Celtic nations and not the England, UK and Europe projects, and saying their input is "desperately needed"?

Except for the CCs, this template includes all "countries" found in other Wikipedia lists of countries, i.e. sovereign states and dependent territories. The included states with limited recognition claim independence, are de facto independent, and are all recognized as sovereign by at least some other states. Dependent territories, though not sovereign, are fully autonomous and are not integrated in their respective states. None of these characteristics are shared by the CCs, Catalonia, Bavaria or any other European subdivision. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the bizarre double (triple?) negative there, you have provided no evidence of canvassing. You have however, provided ample evidence that you do not want your proposal publicised in those areas. "Desperately needed" means that people should respond quickly, before you decide to shut the discussion down. Again, why the hatred of Catalonia etc? That's odd too.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - note also use of Ireland in template. I am not sure this is acceptable, since both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are parts of the island of Ireland. There are also certain instances in which the entireity of Ireland comes under certain bodies eg Church of Ireland, Irish Rugby Football Union. Whatever the state decides to call itself, this is not in itself helpful.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This template should direct the users to subpages, not the country page itself. Many of the subpages it seems are merged, such as geography of Ireland, and so have no Republic-specific link to go to, as the Republic-specific link redirects to the overall island article. Presumably the same applies to articles on all-Ireland bodies. Is there any area where such links are leading somewhere they shouldn't? CMD (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]