Template talk:Europe topic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Europe Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Europe and Europeans on Wikipedia.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Remote islands 2 Link in title 3 Variant 3.1 Merge proposal 4 Template name 5 Turkish Nationalist Vandalism 6 Kazakhstan? 7 Cyprus in SW Asia? 8 European Union 9 "the" 10 Kaliningrad? 11 Greece 12 Ireland 13 Greenland 14 RS 15 South Ossetia 16 Template Source 17 Scotland 18 Russia part of African Plate? 19 Transnistria 20 Hide as default 21 Catalonia 22 Ireland always links to Oireachtas (=parliament of RoI) 23 "License Plates of Europe" 24 Israel 25 Gagauzia 26 This template is pointless 27 United Kingdom 28 Rapid transit 29 footnotes 30 Kosovo 31 Licence plates 32 Formatting 33 Russia mostly in Asia 34 One size fits all 35 Northern Cyprus

[edit] Remote islands

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Link in title

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)

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)

[edit] Variant

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)

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)

[edit] Merge proposal

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)

• 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)

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

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)

[edit] Template name

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)

[edit] Turkish Nationalist Vandalism

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.

[edit] Kazakhstan?

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

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

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)

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)

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)

Since the same time as Turkey is. This template basically tries to shove as many countries as possible into Europe, because it is considered prestigious. You see, being in close vicinity of the European continent and not being included into it is synonymous with being accused of barbarism. I'd say the only two countries with a number next to it in this list would be Russia and Cyprus, i.e. nations that expanded from Europe into Asia (Cyprus being a Greek colony). --Humanophage (talk) 05:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus in SW Asia?

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

[edit] European Union

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] "the"

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)

[edit] Kaliningrad?

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)

[edit] Greece

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)

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

It is, in fact, not such a bad idea. Such a minor portion of territory is insignificant for Greece, but would increase the perception of Turkey as an Asian country (that it is), showing that everything to the East of Greece is Asian. --Humanophage (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

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)

[edit] Greenland

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)

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)

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

[edit] RS

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

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

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)

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

[edit] South Ossetia

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)

[edit] Template Source

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)

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:Pakistan topics.

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

[edit] Scotland

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)

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

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)

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

It's not a state, but it's clearly a territory. I've added Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland; many of those are showing up as blue links and are helpful for navigation. The Evil Spartan 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You can make England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland visible in this template by adding |show UK countries=true into the template code on the page you are editing. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russia part of African Plate?

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)

[edit] Transnistria

Transnistria is a breakaway region of Moldova. It should be deleted from this list.--201.225.40.228 05:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria might be a breakaway and an integral part of Moldova, but it is de facto independent and as such should be represented in this template. Other examples of de facto independent states listed in this template, who have no de jure control of their territory include for example Abkhazia, Kosovo and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Jhattara 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. According to the NPOV rule, it is not up to us here in wikipedia to decide the normative status of Transnistria. Here we can not chose sides. The Ogre 11:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the problem is that the template can't avoid choosing sides? It's either 'de facto', or 'de jure' and either way someone is going to be unhappy. I am broadly in favour of keeping Transnistria but I regard this is a subjective judgement based on its relative size and relative autonomy. For similar reasons I would oppose adding Rockall to it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hide as default

could you please make it so that it is hidden / collapsed by default as most of these templates are tnx Arnoutf 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catalonia

Why isn't Catalonia in the autonomies list? --83.60.13.232 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If Catalonia would be included so should all of the sixteen other autonomous communities. Or are there significant differencies in the degree of autonomy between the autonomous communities of Spain? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 20:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland always links to Oireachtas (=parliament of RoI)

We want to change that. sephia karta 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've fixed it now, but next time you see something similar, just check the page history. An anon user's edit broke it, and any user can revert to the previous version. Warofdreams talk 21:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "License Plates of Europe"

If this Wikipedia is to follow the local system of writing, it must be changed to 'Licence' in accordance with British English and European English or Vehicle Registration Plates of Europe or even Number Plates of Europe. I think the last one would be best.

The usage is nothing to do with this template, just the way it is implemented in a series of articles. Perhaps you could raise the issue at Talk:European vehicle registration plates. Warofdreams talk 00:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israel

Why isn't Israel in the template? Although it's fully in Asia, Israel participate in Europe in every sport, Football, American Football, Basketball, Swimming, Baseball etc. RaLo18 (talk) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because topic pages deal with far more than just sports. If you think the sports page needs it, I suggest subst'ing this page onto a new template, much as I did: Template:Sport in Asia, and making your own from there. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gagauzia

As per http://www.parliament.md/download/laws/ro/344-XV-25.07.2003.doc Gagauzia has not the place to be on the list. Sambure ^talk 14:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you give us an English source or at least translate the relevant parts into English? I have been looking for one for a few hours and couldn't find anything that would say that the law on Gagauzia's possibility for self-determination was refuted. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This template is pointless

Templates are supposed to be convenient tools to reference articles. Instead this is a bloody soapbox heaven that invites pointless arguments or wordy caveats over whether X is in Europe, or if entity Y is either a real country or just a duck farm owned by a crazy successionist. Do we really need a template to list together all Europe-specific articles about fauna? Kransky (talk) 09:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not in fauna articles, but there are lots of social/political/geographical articles that need to list even the disputed entities. What would be your suggestion for changing this template? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

My answer is not to have a template. It clutters the page, whereas a link to a categorisation page (where articles are sorted by country) just takes up one line. We will be endlessly arguing over what should go in and how it should be presented. Distracting and ugly too. Kransky (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Templates vs Categories is always going to be a dispute. I'd guess that more people use templates than get overly annoyed by them. Especially when you can make them minimized by default. And if there is no need for the non-country entities in some articles you can always use the countries_only parameter to suppress them. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 14:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

I've added a parameter "UK_only" which suppresses the listing of the constituent countries of the UK. Rich Farmbrough, 16:20 6 December 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Rapid transit

I am going to create a template replacement of {{Europe topic}}

Some of these areas do not actually have metro\subway\rapid transit systems and so these can be removed as appropriate e.g. Isle of Man.

Just to note, it is going to be a copy of this template (Europe topic) with some changes. Probably by the time you have read this i have created this new template, to be titled: {{Rapid transit in Europe}}. Simply south (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] footnotes

Can't we replace: "1 Entirely in Southwest Asia; included here because of cultural, political and historical association with Europe. 2 Partially or entirely in Asia, depending on the definition of the border between Europe and Asia. 3 Mostly in Asia. 4 Entirely in the African Plate, included here because of cultural, political and historical association with Europe." with "1. Partially or entirely outside of Europe, depending on definition of border. Included due to cultural, political and historical association." ?- J Logan ^t: 14:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I'd like to see the footnotes kept as brief as required to clarify the template. Warofdreams talk 01:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo

A footnote is needed like the one for TRNC. The wording is trickier though, given how more states seem to recognize this Kosovo than TRNC but since we know of at least two states (Russia and Serbia) that are never going to recognize it, a footnote would be nice for clarity.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, why do only Kosovo and TRNC have footnotes, while Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria don't? —Nightstallion 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a huge number of footnotes. The new number 5 - "not universally recognised" - would be good for all these and also for TRNC. Warofdreams talk 03:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I meant the other unrecognised countries, but yeah, I'll fix it. —Nightstallion 10:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What I have just done is change the wording "unrecognised country" to "unrecognised or partially recognised country" -- that seems to me to accurately cover both completely unrecognised entities (e.g. Transnistria), near-completely unrecognised entities (e.g. TRNC), and Kosovo which at present is not recognised by the majority of countries, but has several (and in some cases quite powerful) countries recognising it, so "partially recognised" is a better description for Kosovo. --SJK (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Licence plates

One of the templates that uses Template:Europe topic is Template:License plates of Europe. That template somehow doesn't show Vatican City. I've been trying to figure out how to fix this, but I couldn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

As the Vatican is the smallest country in the world, many articles about it would be meaningless (exemple: {{Hinduism in Europe}}). So there is a condition for the Vatican to appear in any template created using {{Europe topic}}: the article about the Vatican must exist. For our example, the article "Hinduism in the Vatican City" should exist to appear in the aforementioned template and for {{License plates of Europe}}, you might want to create the article License plates in the Vatican City. 16@r (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It makes sense to have such a condition. There's not enough to create a stand-alone article about this, so I've created a redirect to Transport in Vatican City#Road vehicles. Is that enough to make the Vatican City appear in the template, or not? (Åland and the Faroe Islands are redirects and they appear in the template) Aecis^Brievenbus 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

Hi. Is anyone else seeing uneven formatting in this template, specifically wide gaps between lines and an "x" superscript character that looks too small at an 11pt/12pt browser font-size setting? Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia mostly in Asia

If such why it is not mentioned that Denmark is mostly in North America?--Dojarca (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Greenland is listed seperately as "North American" which is true from a geographical (but not political) point-of-view. Mainland Denmark is located in Europe with a population of 5.5 million and the country is overwhelmingly European in nature. In contrast, Greenland is a large chunk of land but next to completely uninhabited (60,000 people) and with an economy greatly dependent on subsidies from Denmark proper. In contrast, Siberia is the home of a substantial segment of Russia's population and has a substantial economy on its own. In case anybody wondered; the Faroe Islands are European as well (small territory, population c. 50,000). 83.89.43.14 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Siberian economy also dependent on Russia and the majority of Russian population also live in the European part. Most of Siberia is also next to uninhabited. By the way I see no reason to show Greenland separately from Denmark either. In the case of France it is even clearer: integral parts of France situated in South America so I see no any reason to remove the footnote.--Dojarca (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason why Russia is listed as partly in Asia and France and Denmark not listed as partly on other continents is that their mainland is fully in Europe. On the other hand Russian mainland is spread between two continents. If we want to put Denmark as mostly in North America and France as partly in South America, we should also list France as partly in North America and Africa, Netherlands as partly in Caribbean, Spain and Portugal as partly in Africa... That would open a whole can of worms. On the other hand if we don't list Russia as partly in Asia we should also remove all non-european countries with ties to europe as Russia is definately geographically tied to Asia. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What is "mainland"? French territory in South America is not a colony, protectorate or other dependancy. It is the intergal part of the country. They vote in French elections etc. Saying that Russia is mostly in Asia without saying France is partly in South America is a double standard. I fail to see how this issue can cause removing other countries from the template, but I would not object removing non-European countries from here.--Dojarca (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mainland" France that I talk about is the same as Metropolitan France. The four departments outside the Metropolitan France are part of the Overseas France. If you list France as being in SA you should also list it as being part of Africa and North America. Greenland also is not an integral part of Denmark. It's an autonomous province with wide self-governance. On the other hand Russia's areas in Asia are indivisible in all ways from the Russia's areas in Europe. They have absolutely no distinction between them in any governmental organization. Then what about Spain? It has Canary Islands, Ceuta and Melilla in Africa. Portugal has Azores in Africa. Both are as integral as Greenland to Denmark. As is Netherlands Antilles to the Netherlands. What about the overseas territories of the United Kingdom? Where are you going to draw the line? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course any French sui generis should be footnoted because they are constituent parts of the country. Russia's territories in Siberia such as Yakutia, also have wide self-governance, their own constitution etc.--Dojarca (talk) 09:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The main difference between Russia's and France's non-European parts is that Russia's non-European parts are geographically connected to Russia's European parts. And they are politically even more connected to the European parts of the country. But if France and Denmark should have notes that they are transcontinental countries; then Spain, Portugal, UK and Netherlands should also have the note. And France should also have notes linking it to North America and Africa. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Connection does not matter at all: is not Alaska a part of the USA? Politically Yakytia connected to Russia just as Alaska to the USA and French Guiana to France. I do not see how footnoting France can do something to UK. As I know, UK has no constituent territory outside the British islands.--Dojarca (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

French subdivisional structure is rather complicated, but they still use the metropolitan france / overseas departments and territories as one of the dividers. There is nothing in US subdivisions that would separate Alaska or Hawaii from any other state, except geography. And neither is there anything in Russian subdivisions that would make those in Asia any different from similar subdivisions in Europe. And what would make French Guiana so special that it should be mentioned in a footnote and not Reunion, Guadeloupe or Martinique? If you want to make the changes, please be consistent and include all similar entities. If you put France into South America you will also have to put it into North America and Africa. And then you have to put at least Spain in Africa and maybe Netherlands into North America. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, i'll try. Also I suggest to remove that "Mostly in Asia" and replace it with "partially in Asia" or "has part of its terriotory in Asia", because, for example Russia mostly in Asia only by territory, not by population or economy. It sounds somewhat awkward, just as to say Denmark is mostly in America.--Dojarca (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One size fits all

Does anyone else feel the one size fits all approach isn't working and maybe it time to use separate tailored templates? Gnevin (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it not working? There are some examples where this isn't appropriate, generally because either there is an obvious method of grouping countries which isn't by continent or because there are only a limited number of countries for which articles can be written. This is already discussed in the documentation. Are there any examples where this is used but it isn't working? Warofdreams talk 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

{{Football_in_Europe}} ,note the lack of israel, the Football in Ireland /NI issue and france's oversea terority which probably have their own teams Gnevin (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that is not clear cut. It looks as though {{International football}} deals with the national football associations, and is sensibly grouped by federation. Meanwhile, the Football in [country] series deals with all aspects of football in the country, and so it seems reasonable to group it by geographic continent. Grouping by federation would have some good points, but it would leave e.g. Football in Northern Cyprus with no template. Warofdreams talk 22:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And what about France and it over seas stuff, and Ireland ,Northern Ireland which lead to disamig pagesGnevin (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Cyprus

I would have edited this but the wiki syntax in the template is far too advanced for me. Thing is: Northern Cyprus in this template links to Parliament of Northern Cyprus, while the relevant article is at Assembly of the Republic (Northern Cyprus). I've created the former article as a redirect to the latter, but it'd be better for this template to link directly to the article instead of the redirect. I leave that task to the modern wiki wizards. Amorim Parga (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the very complex nature of this template the pages it links to will very often be redirect pages. E.g. in the case of the Assembly of the TRNC. Parliament is the genaral name for that kind of institutions and adding all kinds of exceptions to this template would clutter it beyond all recognition. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 06:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)