While I appreciate the inclusion of places such as Jan Mayen and Svalbard, I am not sure it makes sense. For example, there will be never be an article about the architecture of Jan Mayen - it is a largely uninhabited possession of Norway's.--Leifern 05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The islands are those linked to from Template:Europe. While there is unlikely to be an article on the architecture of Jan Mayen, there is for example an article on the History of Svalbard. If there's not enough to say on a particular topic to merit an article, it should become a redirect to the article where it is covered - so, for example, architecture of Jan Mayen could redirect to Jan Mayen. Warofdreams talk 01:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it's not that obvious that there should not eventually be an article on architecture of Jan Mayen -- there are specialized buildings there (research station; power plant), and a history of adaptive building for structures no longer in use. -- Mareklug ^talk 00:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akrotiri and Dhekelia has a dead link in all but one of the above examples (Demographics), and that link simply points to the Akrotiri and Dhekelia article itself... Relevance of Foreign relations of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, anyone? (what I am trying to say is that I agree with te first poster here) Jørgen 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good point is wether or not Svalbard and Jan Mayen are dependencies or territories at all. Officially they are both integral parts of Norway just as much as other parts of Norway. They do not fall into the same category as these other listings. The History of Svalbard article is at present about half the lenght of what would be an apropriate history section in the article Svalbard so it should be merged into that article pending the eventuality that someone will write a lot more. If someone should feel the urge to write about Jan Mayen architecture they should in any case start on the Jan Mayen page and only create a separate article if that section becomes too long. Most of these topics will never be any more than a redirect or a statement that the topic is the same as in the rest of Norway and dealt with in the Norway article. But the bottom line remains: These two are not dependencies, territories, non-self-governing entities or any other such category.Inge 12:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Mayen is part of NordlandCounty. Inge 12:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not a good idea that this template links its title automatically. At the point of transclusion, it would be easy to provide the second parameter with the enclosing square brackets, whereas the current version creates redlinks to articles that don't exist, and probably never will (like Coats of arms of Europe, List of airports in Europe, Security issues in Europe, etc.) KissL (don't forget to vote!) 12:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the second two wouldn't exist, but I've found that in the large majority of cases, the automatic linking is exactly what is desired. In the few cases where it isn't, the second parameter allows the title to easily be replaced. Warofdreams talk 03:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a variant {{Europe in topic2}} for Buddhism in Europe that doesn't include the Vatican or dependencies and territories. Addhoc 14:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just redirect Buddhism in the Vatican City to Vatican City, which will explain the religious situation to anyone not already familiar with it? Similar redirects could be made to the national article or to Religion in... for the other dependencies and territories, should they not merit an article. Warofdreams talk 04:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed merging Template:Europe in topic2 in. Having two templates doing the same job makes them more difficult to maintain. Should someone find it essential to omit the microstates from a this template in a particular use, we could look at having an argument which does that. Warofdreams talk 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Have amended {{Europe topic}} to:
  1. omit Vatican City if "Topic in/of Vatican City" doesn't exist;
  2. omit the dependencies etc if the parameter countries_only instantiated.

Currently Islam in Spain the only article using the latter. If these amendments okay, perhaps they remove the need for {{Europe in topic2}} and {{Europe in topic3}} and any other forks...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't even seen Europe in topic3. Great work on the template! Warofdreams talk 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  Have now added the countries_only option to the other continent-topic templates that include territories and mentioned this facility here. Yours, David (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{Europe topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{Europe topic|Communications in}}, {{Europe topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep an eye for insertions of the unrecognized turkish invased region of cyprus. It's ilegal according to international lawand completely unrecognized. Turkish nationalist extremists keep inserting it.

Since when is this country in Europe??? 89.137.36.86 18:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (ES Vic)[reply]

It has a small amount of territory in Europe. See the archives of template talk:Europe. Warofdreams talk 20:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it has some patches of steppe west of the Ural river. This can be discussed on Transcontinental country, but certainly isn't a reason to list Kazakhstan in this template. Give us a break. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If part of it is in Europe, it should be listed here, with an apropriate disclaimer. Just because it doesn't fit with one's subjective map of the world isn't a reason to exclude it from an objective list. --ScottMainwaring 16:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Kazakhstan is always grouped with other European countries in sports, as is Israel which isn't listed here. Wikipeditor 01:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, it was in the Mediterranean. EamonnPKeane 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could we provide a switch so the supranational entity the european union can be switched off? I can envision and article about the Architecture of Europe - ie the templates title, but this would only duplicate information within Architecture of the European Union. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to fit with the idea of the template at all, so I've removed it. Warofdreams talk 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few EU articles on this topics now, I'd suggest including it either in the lower part of the text or in the title "etc of Europe (EU)". It doesn't have articles on some yes, but so do a lot of the articles there and its not always a duplication, there are important differences between the two. -JLogan 20:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these templates should stick to nations. There are plenty of international unions, and there might be case for creating a template for them, but there seems little to be gained by adding the EU, EFTA, etc to make this template larger and less focussed. Warofdreams talk 23:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The EU is slightly different from EFTA or any other organisation. I suggest the EU for that reason. For example EFTA or the AU do not have a directly elected democratic parliament making the majority of the laws of it's members (80% for Germany) with common foreign polices, supranational powers and laws and so on - all of which I wont repeat again here. The EU can easily be distinguished as separate from other IOs and can easily be argued to have powers akin to a state, if not one. There are plenty of EU pages on these areas, different from just Europe, and should be linked to through this. -JLogan 08:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people have been removing "the" from links. Please don't do this, as it breaks most of them. While you may be looking at a specific use of this template where it is not needed, in most cases it is. Warofdreams talk 17:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Currently useless for navigation except for {{Europe topic|Administrative divisions of}} and {{Europe topic|List of settlements in}}, as we only have Administrative divisions of Kaliningrad Oblast and List of settlements in Kaliningrad Oblast. Wikipeditor 01:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should Greece be marked as having a portion (4.6%) of its territory in Asia (as per Transcontinental country#Countries in both Asia and Europe)? --Kimon 14:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who had the idea to have Greece as part of Asia? I took the initiative to remove the relative indication? As for why i refer you to the history of the name of Europe Ipodamos

Both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland directed to .....Ireland - I've kept the republic as just Ireland and fixed the link to Northern ireland. [1] --Joopercoopers 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Greenland be listed here as well? It may not be a part of Europe geographically (and maybe culturally), but since it's a Danish province, I think it should be included as well. -- Schneelocke 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should with a new note of (5) for countries geographically in North America but are culturally part of Europe. --Kimon^talk 15:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It and similar territories are described here as "Outlying territories". Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the RS (Republika Srpska) since it is neither autonomous nor a dependency. Vseferović 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bring politics here? Template just for navigation.--Methodius 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I comented: Kosovo is there, you obviously did not saw it, RS is "other territory" if not "autonomy" (parliament, president, police etcetc!). Add Vojvodina, why not? Vojvodina is autonomous province you know. I add it myself in fact, it's good idea, better navigation. Why did no-one think of it before? So what is your point now?--Methodius 22:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious Vseferović doesn't like Republika Srpska.

Should South Ossetia also be added to this template as there are already other unrecognized states in here? Jhattara 07:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I view the source for the template Tourism in Europe. Everytime I click edit it goes to another European template. All I need to do is copy and past the contents into the Template:World Tourism, but to the version in my sand box first. I am changing the sections to include other regions like Europe and Asia and then remove other sections like the one for hospitality and the see also list. Mindys12345स्वागतम्! ॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!

I don't believe that you will be able to view the "source" of a specific usage of this template (unless you mean the HTML, for which there should be an option in the menu of your browser). {{World Tourism}} looks rather large; I'm doubtful that it would be wise to include links to articles on tourism in every nation of the world. It would probably be better to exclude the national links and instead include both the shorter World Tourism template, and the appropriate continental topic template. Warofdreams talk 23:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I actually typed the entire contents for tourism in Europe manually and then added the to contents template world tourism. If I do continue to add more to it then I would probably look at ruducing some of the other sections or remove them completely to make way for other regions. I was actually planning on making this template the one stop tourism template but without the redlinks that the other templates have. I would probably add two to three more sections for other regions, possiby Asia and the Middle East. Also have a look at this template, its quite large Template:PakistanTopics.

Thanks Mindys12345स्वागतम्! এই সভ্যজন অসমৰॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!

I have just discovered the Fauna version of this template and put it in Fauna of Scotland. Sadly, Scotland does not show up, although there is provision for this in the template. Could someone knowledgeable switch it on? Thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland is not a UN state.--Indexxs 19:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that. However, here is the relevant code:

{nowrap|[[{{{1|}}} the United Kingdom|United Kingdom]]}}{{#if:{{{show UK countries|}}} |<!--then:--> <small>([[{{{1|}}} England|England]]{{·}} [[{{{1|}}} Scotland|Scotland]]{{·}} [[{{{1|}}} Northern Ireland|Northern Ireland]]{{·}} [[{{{1|}}} Wales|Wales]])</small>}}<!--Vatican City made optional for sake of topics such as "Islam in", "Buddhism in", etc:-->{{#ifexist:{{{1|}}} the Vatican City |<!--then:-->{{·}} {{nowrap|[[{{{1|}}} the Vatican City|Vatican City]]}} |<!--else:--><!--(omit Vatican City)-->}

I do not know exactly what it means, but it suggests to me that somehow the template can be used for the constituent countries of the UK. The question is - if so, how? (And if not, why?) I didn't want to go messing about trying to find out for myself by trial and error. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now apparently fixed - thanks to Jhattara. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, not very familiar with editing on wikipedia, so hopefully someone will make the necessary changes. Why is there a 3 next to Russia (meaning its part of the African tectonic plate)? I would've put a 2 there (meaning its half in asia, half in europe). However, when I tried editing, I could not see the three, but only a dot (I could see "1"'s in other locations fine, but could not see the 3 in question. Can someone make these changes?

• The font is small and you're misreading it (either that, or someone was screwing around and it's since been fixed). Next to Russia is a 2, meaning it's partially in Asia. The 3 is next to Madeira. DS 14:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]