Template talk:Countries and territories of East Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reverting

Please can we revert this page back to this version for now, in order to ensure consistency with all the other country boxes? Disapproval of that layout can be voiced at the page I set up for that purpose (meta:Page footers), and then all the country boxes will be modified to reflect the consensus reached on that page. -- Timwi 23:06, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why the status quo can't have precendence over the changed version. This should stay for comparison purposes. I don't see why the discussion has to go on meta. We should stick with the English wikipedia for now. --Jiang 01:41, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
You could have voiced your opinion on the placement of the poll on the Wikipedia:Village pump or the Mailing List, where I announced the discussion before I started it. But then again, where it takes place makes no real difference at all. -- Timwi 09:53, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't read every post on the mailing list. That would be a drain on my time. I guessed I missed it on the pump. They archive things really fast there.

I don't see why we shouldnt create a page on Wikipedia:Page_footers. Aside from the formatting, my questions/comments at wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries havent been answered. --Jiang 10:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you move the page over to Wikipedia. — Currently, the dispute is about the formatting. Your other questions/comments both here and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries are separate issues that do not conflict with this one. I cannot comment on them because I'm pretty useless at geography and politics. I only want a consistent layout throughout the site. -- Timwi 20:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, you have not participated in the discussion on the meta page. Nobody on that page voiced approval of your preferred layout. Now please can we revert this to the layout that is consistent with everything else? -- Timwi 23:36, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe this belongs on meta, so I will not discuss there. I may make a wikipedia page when I get to it - and that will will portray the footers with the text above it. Of course the new formatting looks better on its own, but when it's added to the bottom of an article, we see TOC No.2 and that's not what we want.
Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Each wikiproject should be able to choose its own formatting to fit its particular needs. There's no need for unrelated articles to look the same.--Jiang 00:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you in regards to things like taxoboxes, but when it comes to things that are pretty common (or going to become pretty common) across Wikipedia, we do need consistency, even across WikiProjects. This is why we also have a consistent look of disambig pages, stubs, image thumbnails, etc. P.S. If you refuse to discuss this just because the page is on meta, then that's really your problem. -- Timwi 12:04, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
(The page is on Wikipedia now: Wikipedia:Page footers.) -- Timwi 18:06, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolia

See also MediaWiki talk:Central Asia

I think Mongolia should be listed as part of East Asia - it's not even contiguous with the countries that form Central Asia. And it should explain that Vietnam is considered part of East Asia because of the Chinese cultural influence. john 04:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Map of Central Asia courtesy of World Book 2002:
Image:CentralAsiaWB.png
--Cantus 03:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam

In accordance with the agreement reached on Mongolia (see MediaWiki talk:Central Asia) to include it on both Central Asia and East Asia, I have added Vietnam (which is also included on Southeast Asia) to this East Asia page. See also Talk:East Asia. --Lowellian 08:23, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

There was no agreement reached on Mongolia, nor will there be one here. Vietnam lies squarely in Southeast Asia. --Wik 08:24, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
There certainly seems to have been an agreement reached on the Mongolia talk page I mentioned. If you disagreed with that, maybe you should have commented on it. But looking at the page history of this page, you seem to also have wanted Mongolia on East Asia.
I am not denying that Vietnam lies in Southeast Asia. I am saying that it also lies in East Asia. --Lowellian 08:43, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Try a Google search:
"vietnam is a country in southeast asia" - 614
"vietnam is a country in east asia" - 0
--Wik 08:48, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
Try another Google search:
+vietnam +"southeast asia" - 656,000
+vietnam +"east asia" - 667,000
The plus sign in the Google syntax means that Google searches for pages where both entries are on the same page.
--Lowellian 09:04, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
Which is of course entirely meaningless if you don't put the terms in direct context. +vietnam +"europe" gets even more hits, Vietnam must be in Europe! --Wik 09:20, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I agree, I reacted too fast and that Google search proves nothing. However, I think this does show Vietnam can be considered part of East Asia:

  • Harvard University
    • Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese are listed as the four East Asian languages. [1]
    • "East Asian Studies": "Each student is trained in the study of East Asia as a whole and pursues specialized study of one East Asian society: China, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam." [2]
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
    • "Minor in East Asian Studies": "East Asia, strictly defined, includes the countries which share a common background in the Chinese classical tradition: present-day People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam; but the core offerings at MIT cover China and Japan." [3]
  • Bryn Mawr College and Haverford College
    • "The East Asian Studies program is a bi-college program that links rigorous language training to the text-based study of Chinese and Japanese culture....Korean, Vietnamese and other East Asian language courses are available at the University of Pennsylvania." [4] [5]
  • University of California, Irvine
    • "UCI East Asian Languages & Literatures": Look what languages are listed on the sidebar at left: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese. [6]

When five reputable colleges, including two of the most prestigious universities in the world (Harvard and MIT), claim that Vietnam constitutes part of East Asia, I'm inclined to say, that, yes, some people do consider Vietnam part of East Asia and Wikipedia would not be following an NPOV policy to ignore that. --Lowellian 10:04, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Including Vietnamese in East Asian languages for the purpose of some course is not the same as including Vietnam in East Asia in general. Geographically, if you divide Asia into regions including East Asia and Southeast Asia, it makes no sense to include Vietnam in East Asia. Why not Cambodia too, or the Philippines? A wider definition of East Asia could include all of Southeast Asia, but not just Vietnam. But we do have a Template:Southeast Asia, so that's where Vietnam belongs. See Britannica maps for East Asia and Southeast Asia to see how those are coherent geographic groupings. It is quite obvious that assigning Vietnam to East Asia would make as little sense as assigning Mongolia to Central Asia. --Wik 10:30, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Two of the quotations above have nothing to do with languages: "Each student is trained in the study of East Asia as a whole and pursues specialized study of one East Asian society: China, Japan, Korea, or Vietnam." and "East Asia, strictly defined, includes the countries which share a common background in the Chinese classical tradition: present-day People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam." Also, the above are not about languages; these are about entire programs of study. At Harvard, for example, you can earn a Bachelor's degree in East Asian Studies by studying Vietnam.

A country can simultaneously belong in more than one grouping. Mexico is part of North America, Middle America, and Latin America. Mongolia is part of Central Asia and East Asia. Vietnam is part of Southeast Asia and East Asia. Russia is part of Europe and Asia. Egypt is part of Africa and the Middle East. --Lowellian 05:10, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Russia is partly in Europe, partly in Asia, with a relatively well-defined boundary. That's hardly the case for Vietnam. Are you saying northern Vietnam is in East Asia, and southern Vietnam in Southeast Asia? And North America and Latin America are just apples and oranges, one is a geographic division and the other a linguistic one. No one would use both of them in one system of dividing the world into regions. --Wik 07:42, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

And Egypt? --Lowellian 23:47, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

All of Egypt is usually considered part of the Middle East, so "Middle East" and "Africa" are overlapping areas and would not be used at the same time in a regional division of the world. A consistent system would either draw the line between Africa and Asia - in which case Egypt is partly in one region, partly in another - or, if the system uses the Middle East, it would have to divide the rests of Africa and Asia into appropriate subregions. --Wik 08:15, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
You said it yourself: overlapping areas. Southeast Asia and East Asia are overlapping areas. --Lowellian 01:14, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, why is a Vietnam and East Asian country, but not Laos or Cambodia? As Wik says, there are definitions of East Asia which could include all of Southeast Asia. But since we are clearly not using that definition, we should use the narrow one that does not include any of Southeast Asia. john 02:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Can you find a source that lists Laos or Cambodia as part of East Asia? Maybe so, maybe not, but the discussion here is about Vietnam. And there definitely are sources that place Vietnam within East Asia; I've listed some of those sources above. When some reputable sources maintain that Vietnam is part of East Asia, Wikipedia would be irresponsible and POV to choose to disregard those sources.
One definition of East Asia is those countries which have fallen under the Chinese cultural sphere in the past. Vietnam has. Before the French occupation, Vietnam used Chinese characters. And parts of Vietnam have also come under Chinese rule during certain periods of its history.
I'm less concerned about this MediaWiki than about the actual "East Asia" article. What is so wrong with the form of the article as it stands as of the 17:38, May 4, 2004 revision? This revision shows a neutral point of view, indicating that Vietnam can be seen as either part of East Asia or part of Southeast Asia.
--Lowellian 03:23, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about the Chinese cultural influence, but decided to take a harder line stand. I think the mediawiki should probably not include Vietnam, just because the Mediawiki shouldn't be overlapping, since it's meant to go at the bottom of the article, and it would be irritating to have two there. But the East Asia article should perhaps mention that Vietnam can be considered a part of East Asia, although I wouldn't put it at that it can be seen as being either part of East Asia or part of Southeast Asia - it is part of Southeast Asia, and can be seen in addition to maybe be part of East Asia. john 03:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Is the revision as of 22:46, May 4, 2004 better? --Lowellian 03:48, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, a good authoritative source, the U.N., classifies the following areas in "Eastern Asia":

  • China (which they take to include Taiwan)
  • Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China
  • Macao Special Administrative Region of China
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
  • Japan
  • Mongolia
  • Republic of Korea

see [7]

Ben Arnold 04:18, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I consider Vietnam to be in Southeast Asia too. Its connections with China is but a historical one, as much as Myanmar was once part of India, but is considered Southeast Asian today instead of South Asian. Southeast Asia is understandably a porous region coming under great cultural and political influence from China in the north and India in the west, but this is percisely why the term "Southeast Asia" come about...South of China, East of India!

Vietnam is in the Association of South East Asian Nations, a participating country in the Southeast Asian Games (and not in the East Asian Games). In Singapore, home to the most well established and reputable education institutions of South East Asia, Vietnam is consistently classified under this region, be it in linguistic studies or the social sciences, as well as within the geographic scope of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

In adidtion, the vast majority of contemporary maps and atlases today classify Vietnam under Southeast Asia, and not East Asia, as well as organisations in the United Nations.--Huaiwei 10:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well it's hard to tell whether cultural or geographical should rule. -- 15:48, December 11, 2004, UTC

[edit] Trolling

How Cantus? What's the point of specifying "partially"? It's done nowhere else. Inclusion here does not indicate that it's excluded from another region. China is usually considered part of East Asia if we ever have to pick one. --Jiang 06:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Another example: Turkey. I think it would be pretty irresponsible to put Turkey in MediaWiki:Europe, without saying that is only partially in that continent (a tip of Turkey is in Europe). --Cantus 06:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should be more specific - "also Central Asia". Does that also mean we also add Mongolia and Vietnam and add footnotes ("also Central Asia" for the fmr and "also Southeast Asia" for the ltr)? --Jiang 06:19, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe 'Also partially in Central Asia'. I don't think we should include Vietnam in East Asia, though. --Cantus 06:26, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Dependencies - Hong Kong and Macao

Would you mind telling why dependencies should not be added to the list? Yes it doesn't fit but it does make life more convenient. After all Hong Kong and Macao are independent entities except for diplomatic relations and national defense. They have their own delegations (not under China) to certain international organisations like WTO and APEC.

discussion and plebiscite at Template talk:East Asia

[edit] Mongolia and Vietnam

Why can't two lists be overlapped? It would be much more convenient. They are on the margins of different areas, and different people have different rule of classification. It is against Wikipedia's principle to force users to conform with one way and ignore other existing rules.

discussion and plebiscite at Template talk:East Asia

[edit] PRC/ROC

Cantus, we have conventions established at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). If you don't want to follow them, then work to change the conventions, don't simply defy them. Using "Chinese Taipei" is outright trolling. It's fine to list them out of you find that to be compromise - that's [[People's Republic of China]] and [[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] or [[Republic of China|Taiwan (Republic of China)]]. Okay? --Jiang 02:29, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Current version is not good looking but fine too. --Jiang 02:31, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mongolia

Have we done a vote on whether Mongolia should be included? Some definitions do include Mongolia, you know. WhisperToMe 07:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dependencies Other entities - Hong Kong and Macao

Would you mind telling why dependencies other entities should not be added to the list? Yes it doesn't fit but it does make life more convenient. After all Hong Kong and Macao are independent entities except for diplomatic relations and national defense. They have their own delegations (not under China) to certain international organisations like WTO and APEC.

[edit] Discussion

See the discussion at Naming and listing conventions. Hong Kong and Macau are not "dependencies" but are "inalienable part of the PRC" (Article 1, Basic Law). This is a widely accepted position. As I assert at the talk page above there is no reason for treating Hong Kong / Macau separately from PRC in this context. -Hlaw 11:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who can tell if it is inalienable. But many entities are non-sovereign and their sovereinties are held by a sovereign state. Hong Kong and Macao are not ordinary first-order or province-level administrative divisions. If you don't like the term dependencies, let's change it to "other entities" or "other political entities", like what other world regions are doing. -- 15:39, December 11, 2004, UTC

[edit] Vote

  • add - reason: see above
  • delete "Dependencies" is a strange term for autonomous regions of a country, and they should not be appearing in country lists at all.--Huaiwei 10:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The status of the SARs of the PRC

QUOTE "*delete "Dependencies" is a strange term for autonomous regions of a country, and they should not be appearing in country lists at all.--Huaiwei 10:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)" ENDQUOTE

SARs are not autonomous regions. --15:40, December 11, 2004, UTC

They are countries then? We dont need the term "autonomous" to appear in the full name of the SARs to declude that they are autonomous to some degree.--Huaiwei 15:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
SARs are not the same as autonmous regions like Tibet, Xinjiang, Guangxi, Ningxia or Inner Mongolia. -- 17:17, December 11, 2004, UTC
Are Niue, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. countries then? -- 17:18, December 11, 2004, UTC
Is Hong Kong's situation the same as Niue, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc?--Huaiwei 17:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comparable. Perhaps you can have a look at CIA World Factbook too. -- 18:50, December 11, 2004, UTC
Conmparable? I dont remember any of the above entities being colonised by one power for over a century, and with a fixed timetable allowing for a handover of jurisdiction, and the implimentation of a 50-year grace period to keep things at a status-quo? Duh. --Huaiwei 06:49, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not a "50-year grace period" for a handover of jurisdiction. And what I meant was the way how the entities are operated, and the relationships between such entities and their corresponding states holding their sovereignty are comparable. -- 17:25, December 12, 2004, UTC
It is a 50 year period to maintain the status quo. Everyone knows that. And the "status quo", btw, does not elevate Hong Kong from a colony to a country thanks to the 1997 handover.--Huaiwei 01:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes it's to keep the "status quo" of 1997, but it's not a "grace period". Colonies are usually listed under the category "countries" or "countries and territories". Hong Kong's position is not elevate or the other way round. Have you ever seen Turks and Caicos Islands and Bermuda listed under the UK?-- 03:42, December 13, 2004, UTC
Are you more interested in playing with my words or what? Go read back on the context of what I said, and tell me how different it is from what you are saying.--Huaiwei 04:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am not interested at all, and I never did it in this thread of discussion. I am just making something clear, for instance, it's nothing "grace". -- 04:41, December 13, 2004, UTC
Actually it is a grace period. Unless you think that phrase is insulting, there is nothing factually wrong with it.--Huaiwei 05:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Grace for what? For not practising communism? -- 05:38, December 13, 2004, UTC
Oh my...so this is the reason why you find it an insulting term? Shit...am I sounding like a communist now?--Huaiwei 05:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. There's nothing "grace". Why do you think it's "grace" then? -- 08:15, December 13, 2004, utC
So why they can be listed as "countires and territories" or "other entities", but not Hong Kong and Macao? -- 05:43, December 13, 2004, UTC

[edit] Mongolia and Vietnam

Why can't two lists be overlapped? It would be much more convenient. They are on the margins of different areas, and different people have different rule of classification. It is against Wikipedia's principle to force users to conform with one way and ignore other existing rules.

[edit] Discussion

Please discuss here. (remove this sentence)

[edit] Vote

  • add - reason: see above
  • delete for vietnam only. Reasons as above.

[edit] "Dependencies" or "other entities" or any other names

I myself prefer using "other entities" to "dependencies" as the name of the category. Other names can be "other political units", "other political entities", "dependencies and territories", etc., from the box of other regions. -- 17:21, December 11, 2004, UTC

[edit] Overlapping

There is no reason the templates can't be overlapped. Mongolia and Vietnam should be added to this template. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 01:47, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Dependencies

SchmuckyTheCat changed "dependencies" into "special administrative regions" in this edit. "Special administrative regions" is not a generic and all encompassing term. Please refer to the boxes of other regions or continents, e.g. Template:Europe or Template:Africa. — Instantnood 23:06, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually they look more accurate now. That they are "special" already explains why they dont follow the format of other regions or continents!--Huaiwei 23:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Special administrative regions" is not a generic term in referring to dependent territories. By using "special administrative regions" more problems are in fact generated. There are also special administrative regions in North Korea. — Instantnood 23:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
then add the special administrative regions in North Korea. HK and Macau certainly are not dependencies, if there is to be another term, discuss. Dependencies isn't it. HK and Macau are the only non-countries listed currently, so I edited to what they are "Special Administrative Regions" SchmuckyTheCat 00:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Special administrative regions of North Korea are not the same as Hong Kong and Macao, but name. — Instantnood 00:50, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
What kind of "problem" is being foreseen? What is a "generic" term for dependencies? And meanwhile, Hk and Macau are dependencies of the PRC? As I asked before...are they colonies? Overseas territories? Or what?--Huaiwei 00:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Réunion, French Guiana, Ceuta and Melilla are not dependencies either, see Template:Africa and Template:South America. See Template talk:Europe and you will know how the term dependency was perceived among the people there. — Instantnood 00:50, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Then go ahead and correct them if you are so desperate. I tot you are quite particular over "accuracies"?--Huaiwei 12:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and consistence as well. — Instantnood 13:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Uh huh. And?--Huaiwei 13:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of East Asia and the place of Vietnam/Mongolia

Culturally, the primary features that modern greater China shares with Japan and Korea are three: (1) heavy influence from the Medieval Chinese language including educated lexicon and traditional use of the Chinese script, (2) heavy influence of Neo-Confucianism on political philosophy and institutions, and (3) heavy influence of Mahayana Buddhism on religious thought. These three elements are a major part of what we study when we study East Asia.

In all these respects, Vietnam matches the others. Mongolia and Tibet do not. -- Charmii 12:37, 23 Apr 2005 (EST)

The East Asia article has illustrated in the sociological/cultural, geographical and political perspectives. — Instantnood 11:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "special territories" or "Special Administrative Region of China"?

In my opinion this template is not specifically China-related, but East Asia. Information on what Hong Kong and Macao are is irrelevant and not neccessary. No other boxes for regions or continents provides specific information on what the special or dependent territories are called. — Instantnood 11:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely because this template is on East Asia, that we need to specify just who those two SARs belong to. They are not the SARs of East Asia. They are the SARs of the PRC. Only if the template is on the subdivisions of the PRC, do the comment that it is "irrelevant and not neccessary" be justifiable. For example:

Anhui · Fujian · Gansu · Guangdong · Guizhou · Hainan · Hebei · Heilongjiang · Henan · Hubei · Hunan · Jiangsu · Jiangxi · Jilin · Liaoning · Qinghai · Shaanxi · Shandong · Shanxi · Sichuan · Taiwan (claimed) · Yunnan · Zhejiang

v • d • e
Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China
Provinces
Flag of the People's Republic of China
Autonomous regions
Municipalities
SARs
--Huaiwei 11:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
It is not even neccessary to specify what names they are called. See {{Europe}}, {{North America}}, {{South America}}, {{Countries in Oceania}}, {{Southwest Asia}}, {{Middle East}} and {{Africa}}. — Instantnood 12:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Europe: multiple countries, multiple dependencies
North America: multiple countries, multiple dependencies
South America: multiple countries, multiple dependencies
Oceania: countries and territories in one list
Middle East: countries and territories in one list
Africa: multiple countries, multiple dependencies
etc.
The examples you cite show no consistency and don't prove what you're trying to say. On this template, we have two special territories of one country. It is good to be specific and there isn't any reason not to be specific. SchmuckyTheCat 14:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
A very close example would be {{South America}}, where there are only two non-sovereign States. Yet they are not specified what they are, and which country they belong to, not even in brackets. — Instantnood 14:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
so why should we follow this version instead of that for any other template?--Huaiwei 14:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
And vice versa? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
If you could take some time off to read, our rational for its current format is well explained above. As for the opposing argument, the only point raised was that it was "unnecesary". I think any level headed person who looks at this is going to laugh.--Huaiwei 15:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Why is it necessary to specify in this template the name of these two special territories is Special Administrative Region, and their sovereignty is held by the PRC? — Instantnood 16:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
You are "answering" a question by asking the same question back, the exact question which has already been answered again and again and again by us, but you yourself fails to answer it, instead insisting on saying it is "not neccesary" and nothing else. Pretty obvious you are with-holding information, isnt it?--Huaiwei 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I've stated why it is not necessary but you doesn't seem to have recognised it. Meanwhile I'd like you to elaborate your reasoning that the name "special administrative region" has to be specify because the template is not specific to a sovereign State. 17:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
yawn This is filibustering. Please provide a reason to not be specific. "It's un-necessary" is not a reason. "It's inconsistent" is also not a reason, as there is no consistent. Are there still colonies or dependent territories here in this region that could be added? Then a more generic catch-all term might be a fine idea. As it is, HK and Macau are the only "non-countries" in the list. Linking them to a SAR, where a reader can enlighten themselves, is reader convenience. Remember the readers? This isn't an intellectual masturbation session about the political status of HK. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hong Kong and Macao are special administrative regions of the PRC and there's no dispute about it. The issue here is whether there's a need to provide such information by this box which is not specificly China-related, and whether such information is directly relevant to this box. — Instantnood 17:38, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
I tot I have alrrady said. Precisely that this template is NOT china related, that we have to specify just who those two SARs belong to, as they are not the SARs of East Asia. Please debate over this point, or else just admit that you cant seem to go beyond saying it is "not neccesary".--Huaiwei 11:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It is because exactly this template is not specificly related to a sovereign State, and therefore we need not provide information what the non-sovereign States are known as (Special Administrative Region in this case). Using the generic term "dependencies" or "special territories" is already adequate. — Instantnood 16:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This is funny. I just said this template is not related to a specific country, and hence it needs to mention just who those SARs belong to. Simple logic tells us that this is not neccesary if it is a template for a country's subdivisions. Your above commentary does nothing but defies logic, and again, the lack of a sensible and logical explaination is certainly a cause for concern.--Huaiwei 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
{{South America}}, {{Africa}} and {{Europe}} are not specifically related to a sovereign State either.. and yet the sovereignty holders of non-sovereign entities listed, and the specific names of these entities (e.g. DOMs, overseas territories, etc.) are not specified. If your logic held {{South America}}, for instance, should be like this:
 
Countries in South America
Argentina | Bolivia | Brazil | Chile | Colombia | Ecuador | Guyana | Panama | Paraguay | Peru | Suriname | Trinidad and Tobago | Uruguay | Venezuela
Dependencies: Falkland Islands (Overseas territory of the UK) | French Guiana (DOM of France)

or perhaps:

Countries in South America
Argentina | Bolivia | Brazil | Chile | Colombia | Ecuador | Guyana | Panama | Paraguay | Peru | Suriname | Trinidad and Tobago | Uruguay | Venezuela
Overseas territory of the UK: Falkland Islands
Département d'outre-mer of France: French Guiana

and {{Africa}} should be like this:

Countries in Africa

Algeria | Angola | Benin | Botswana | Burkina Faso | Burundi | Cameroon | Cape Verde | Central African Republic | Chad | Comoros | Democratic Republic of the Congo | Republic of the Congo | Côte d'Ivoire | Djibouti | Egypt | Equatorial Guinea | Eritrea | Ethiopia | Gabon | The Gambia | Ghana | Guinea | Guinea-Bissau | Kenya | Lesotho | Liberia | Libya | Madagascar | Malawi | Mali | Mauritania | Mauritius | Morocco | Mozambique | Namibia | Niger | Nigeria | Rwanda | São Tomé and Príncipe | Senegal | Seychelles | Sierra Leone | Somalia | Somaliland | South Africa | Sudan | Swaziland | Tanzania | Togo | Tunisia | Uganda | Zambia | Zimbabwe | Western Sahara
Dependencies: British Indian Ocean Territory1 | Canary Islands2 | Ceuta3 and Melilla3 | Madeira Islands4 | Mayotte5 | Réunion6 | Saint Helena and dependencies1
1 Overseas territory of the UK   2 Autonomous community of Spain   3 Autonomous city of Spain   4 Autonomous region of Portugal   5 COM of France   6 DOM of France

Nevertheless I would say such information is not necessary and superfluous, because these continent or region boxes, as mentioned, are not directly specific to any sovereign State, but continents or regions.

— Instantnood 17:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
There is so far no valid reason presented why the template for East Asia has to be different from those for other world regions. — Instantnood 18:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

No good reason except the ones you are ignoring. [8] [9] [10] In other words, nothing has changed. There is no consistency elsewhere so there is no consistency to enforce. We only have one country on our template that has anything special to call out and it adds value and avoids confusion to the reader to call them what they are on the template. SchmuckyTheCat 18:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that as all non-sovereign States in the region are part of the same sovereign State, the template for this region can be different from that of other regions? (While regions with non-sovereign States belonging to more than one sovereign States, no matter two or six, can be consistent, as in the case of South America and Africa?) — Instantnood 20:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Would you be fine with using the style of {{Countries in Oceania}}, {{Southwest Asia}} and {{Middle East}} to avoid all the trouble? — Instantnood 20:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
What trouble? SchmuckyTheCat 22:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  Like this:
Countries (or Countries and territories, Countries and regions) in East Asia
China (PRC) | Hong Kong | Japan | Macau | North Korea | South Korea | Taiwan (ROC)
— Instantnood 08:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam and/or Mongolia

I know users continually suggest this, only to be disapproved, but I do think it's time to reconsider including Vietnam and/or Mongolia. --Dpr 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

These geographical regions are never clear-cut, and definitions based on different criteria provide different outcomes. Both Vietnam and Mongolia are East Asian according to some definitions. — Instantnood 20:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Special administrative regions: Hong Kong, Macau

Why are these a part of the template? While it makes sense to put them on {{Province-level divisions of the People's Republic of China}}, it makes no sense for them to be here. Only Sovereign countries (defacto or not) should be linked from continental templates.

If Hong Kong and Macau are ok, then so should be an armada of autonomous regions. North America has 49 of those (US states have a greater level of autonomy than hong kong and are only required to follow the constitution) + the canadian ones.

--Cat out 14:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No where in the constitution or in any law that special administrative regions are said to be comparable to provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions. — Instantnood 20:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

This template should be renamed template:countries of East Asia, to indicate its purpose. — Instantnood 16:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ONE ruling on this, please?

Do we use North Korea/South Korea, as they are currently on this template, or use Template:Countries of Asia and use Korea, Democratic People's Republic of / Korea, Republic of? At least we can have some consistencies here. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solidify the Template and the talk page?

Template currently locates at Template:Countries and territories of East Asia, but the talk page is Template talk:East Asia.... Can we do something about this? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 09:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Suggest template becomes Template:Countries of East Asia (with the SARs listed as a subsection within) and therefore this talk page Template talk:Countries of East Asia. The "Countries and territories" is a remnant of my trying to distinguish between countries and – in this case – SARs (described generically as "territories") in the template's name; consensus, however, did not support this, so I'm planning to suggest all such templates are named "Countries of [continent/region]" with relevant subsections "Sovereign states", "Dependent territories", "Special administrative regions", etc, etc within each. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, can we get more input from other editors on this issue? -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 03:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I was going to post something along the lines of the above somewhere in the WikiProject Countries area and leave links to it on each "Countries of" template talk page. I'll do so during my next Wikipedia session, unless you reckon something else might be easier / more effective...?  Yours, David (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • hi, this renaming issue is like a local skirmish in comparison to the huge tussles going on at Template:Countries of Europe, which has since split into two, with another for non-independent territories. It is also for this reason that only independent states, the most common definition of the word "Country", are included in Template:Countries of Asia. As a member of this hierachy of templates, the same should be applied here. Either it is named "Countries and territories", or we can call it simply as "Countries" and remove the non-independent entities.--Huaiwei 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Have now presented suggestion described above here; please visit and share your thoughts!  I'll now leave similar invites on other "Countries (and territories) of" template talkpages. Best wishes, David (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple column display does not currently work in Internet Explorer or Opera

Multiple columns were implemented in this template on 13 February 2007 using {{Navigation with columns}}. Although it works in Firefox 2, it does not display properly in Internet Explorer 6 or Opera 9. Those of you using this template may wish to look at Template talk: Navigation with columns where I've posted screenshots showing how {{Countries and territories of East Asia}} appears in the previously mentioned browsers. . -- Zyxw 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)