Template talk:Europe topic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2014

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)

 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)

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)

UK

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)

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)

@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)

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

British constituent countries

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposed RfC summary text

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Could someone please check...

Hi, I'm fairly new to this whole "template" thing LOL. Um, recently someone by the name of "Lfdder" has made changes to this template and I'm not really sure if he removed anything important that might ruin the template, so could someone please check to see if his changes are fine? >_< --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Lfdder removed the big "ATTENTION" title of the warning template (which is only shown on the template page because it is inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags), and removed the box that linked to the RfC above (which did show up on all pages that use this template, but isn't really part of the navigational box). Nothing that breaks the template. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! :-) --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC: British constituent countries in Template:Europe topic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

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)

Topics in which the CCs are relevant

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)

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)

Directly transcluded Europe topics (297 topics)

1. (year xxxx) in
2. Abortion in
3. Academic grading in
4. Administrative divisions of
5. Aging of
6. Agriculture in
7. Albanian communities in
8. Alcoholic beverages in
9. Alternative names for
10. Anarchism in
11. Archaeology of
12. Archive of
13. Assembly of
14. Bahá'í Faith in
15. Banking in
16. Bankruptcy in
17. Baptists in
18. Basketball in
19. Biodiversity of
20. Buddhism in
21. Cabinet of
22. Caribbean music in
23. Castles in
24. Cathedrals in
25. Censorship in
26. Censuses in
27. Christianity in
28. Christmas tree production in
29. Climate change in
30. Climate of
31. Climate of east
32. Climate of south-west
33. Climate of the Nordic
34. Coal in
35. Conservation in
36. Conservatism in
37. Copyright law of
38. Corruption in
39. Dance in the
40. Date and time notation in
41. Daylight saving time by
42. Demographic history of
43. Demographics of
44. Digital terrestrial television in
45. Drinking in
46. Driving licence in
47. Dyslexia support in
48. Economic history of
49. Economy of
50. Electoral districts of
51. Electricity sector in
52. Energy in
53. Energy policy of
54. Environment of
55. Epidemiology of
56. Ethnic groups in
57. Ethnic minorities in
58. Etymology of
59. Extreme points of
60. Fauna of
61. Federal Archives of
62. Feminism in
63. Fire service in
64. Folklore of
65. Foreign relations of
66. Forests of
67. Freedom of religion in
68. Freedom of the press in
69. Futsal in
70. Gangs in
71. Geographic regions of
72. Geography of
73. Geology of
74. Golf in
75. Government of
76. Gun legislation in
77. Gun politics in
78. Handball in
79. Health care in
80. Health in
81. Healthcare in
82. Healthcare in the
83. Higher education in
84. Hinduism in
85. History of
86. History of education in
87. History of the Jews in
88. HIV/AIDS in
89. Homelessness in
90. House of
91. Human rights in
92. Human trafficking in
93. Hunger in
94. Hunting in
95. Hydroelectricity in
96. Ice hockey in
97. Illegal immigration in
98. Irish
99. Irreligion in
100. Jainism in
101. Lakes in
102. Landtag of
103. Languages of
104. Law enforcement in
105. Law of
106. LGBT history in
107. LGBT rights in
108. Liberalism and centrism in
109. Liberalism and radicalism in
110. List of airlines of
111. List of airports in
112. List of amphibians and reptiles of
113. List of archives in
114. List of association football clubs in
115. List of association football stadiums in
116. List of banks in
117. List of birds of
118. List of bridges in
119. List of cabinets of
120. List of cathedrals in
121. List of cemeteries in
122. List of churches in
123. List of cities in
124. List of coats of arms of
125. List of companies of
126. List of conflicts in
127. List of dams and reservoirs in
128. List of defunct newspapers of
129. List of diplomatic missions in
130. List of festivals in
131. List of Finnish
132. List of fish in
133. List of football clubs in
134. List of football stadiums in
135. List of freshwater fishes of
136. List of golf courses in
137. List of hotels in
138. List of islands of
139. List of lakes of
140. List of law faculties in
141. List of law schools in
142. List of laws of
143. List of libraries in
144. List of lighthouses in
145. List of magazines published in
146. List of mammals of
147. List of medical schools in
148. List of museums in
149. List of national parks of
150. List of nature reserves in
151. List of nightclubs in
152. List of non-governmental organizations in
153. List of one-hit wonders in
154. List of parks in
155. List of places in
156. List of political parties in
157. List of protected areas in
158. List of regions of
159. List of registered museums in
160. List of reptiles of
161. List of reservoirs and dams in
162. List of restaurants in
163. List of rock
164. List of rock formations in
165. List of shopping centres in
166. List of ski areas and resorts in
167. List of stadiums in
168. List of submerged places in
169. List of supermarket chains in
170. List of television channels in
171. List of the busiest airports in
172. List of tourist attractions in
173. List of town tramway systems in
174. List of towns in
175. List of universities in
176. List of unused highways in
177. List of wars involving
178. List of waterfalls of
179. List of World Heritage Sites in
180. List of years in
181. Lists of
182. Lists of diplomatic
183. Lists of places in
184. Lists of tourist attractions in
185. Local government in
186. Marriage in
187. Media of
188. Medical school in
189. Military history of
190. Mineral industry of
191. Mining in
192. Minorities in
193. Mobile phone industry in
194. Monarchy of
195. Monarchy of the
196. Music in
197. Mythology of
198. Name of
199. National Archive of
200. National Assembly of
201. National costumes of
202. National Library of
203. National parliaments of
204. National Police of
205. National symbols of
206. Nature reserves in
207. Netball in
208. Nuclear energy in
209. Nuclear power in
210. Nursing in
211. NUTS 2 statistical regions of
212. Obesity in
213. Outline of
214. Outline of law
215. Parliament of
216. Patent offices in
217. Pensions in
218. Pesticides in
219. Petroleum industry in
220. Photography in
221. Planning regions of
222. Plug-in electric vehicles in
223. Police of
224. Political parties in
225. Politics of
226. Polygamy in
227. Populated places in
228. Pornography in
229. Portuguese
230. Postal codes in
231. Poverty in
232. Prehistory and protohistory of
233. Privatization in
234. Protected areas of
235. Protestantism in
236. Public holidays in
237. Racism in
238. Railway stations in
239. Recognition of same-sex unions in
240. Regions in
241. Religion in
242. Renewable energy in
243. Retirement in
244. Rivers and lakes of
245. Road signs in
246. Road speed limits in
247. Rugby union in
248. Science and technology in
249. Scouting and Guiding in
250. Secularism in
251. Shia Islam in the
252. Sikhism in
253. Slavery in
254. Social issues in
255. Social protection in
256. Social security in
257. Solar power in
258. Special education in
259. Speed limits in
260. Sport in
261. Sports broadcasting contracts in
262. State Archives in
263. State Assembly of
264. State reserves of
265. States of
266. Statistical regions of
267. Student loans in
268. Subdivisions of
269. Supreme Court of
270. Symbols of
271. Telephone numbers in
272. Television in
273. Tennis in
274. Terrorism in
275. Theatre in
276. Theatre of
277. Time in
278. Timeline of LGBT history in
279. Timeline of prehistoric
280. Timeline of the history of
281. Tourist attractions in
282. Track gauge in
283. Traditional dress of
284. Traditions of
285. Transport in
286. Unemployment benefits in
287. University of
288. Use of capital punishment by
289. Video gaming in
290. Volleyball in
291. Walking in
292. Waterfalls of
293. Welfare in
294. Wildlife of
295. Women in
296. Women's rights in
297. Years in

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)

Sports

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

History

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)

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)

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)

Religion

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

General discussion

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)

• 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)
  • Support change. I agree with Kahastok. — Petr Matas 04:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• Pinging CMD and Ben MacDui as they commented in the discussion above. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

• Support No reason to treat the UK differently. Int21h (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

It looks like canvassing to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

@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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

• "Not sending any notifications is not forbidden" — what exactly is wrong with that sentence?
• Is there a reason you have notified the Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland projects and not the England, Europe and UK projects? If there is I apologize for calling it canvassing. Though you could assume a bit more good faith as well. This is the first RfC I started; I didn't "deliberately avoid" posting messages at relevant projects. To increase the input (not at all necessarily the number of supports), I added a link to the template itself, which serves the same purpose.
• I don't "hate" England, Scotland, Catalonia, Bavaria or any other place. I just don't think country subdivisions should be included in this template, since there's hundreds of them. There's no reason to make an exception for any subdivision unless they're actually treated as separate national entities in some topics, which the CCs are but AFAIK Catalonia isn't. SiBr₄ (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support - basically per SnowFire, along with the fact that the four CCs are simply not sovereign states, and they shouldn't be presented as such, even parenthetically, since the parentheses can easily be missed by the casual reader. In the cases where it makes sense to include them, those articles can opt in. Parsecboy (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The statement "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" doesn't take into account the fact that most sources show the parts of the UK seperately, whereas they don't for the other European countries. If there's a systemic bias here, it's in the sources, and Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what's in the sources without making its own value judgements. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: "The statement (...) doesn't take into account the fact that most sources show the parts of the UK separately" – do you have any proof for this "fact"? And even if you could show that most sources do, that wouldn't be relevant, because quality of sources is way more important than quantity (though I can't find the exact policy right now). Neither WP:COMMONNAME nor WP:OR applies here. SiBr₄ (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a case of WP:BLUE, as a look at almost any map will show you. Commonname may not be relevant but is an example of the spirit of the thing ("most commonly used"), while WP:OR is completely relevant - saying "the sources use X, but Wikipedia will use Y because Wikipedia" is either that or WP:SYNTH. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you live in a different world or something, because of the first fifty Google Images search results for "Map of Europe" all but one show the UK rather than its four CCs. The results on the first two pages of a Google Web search for "Countries of Europe" all do (although one result lists three of the CCs alongside the UK with (UK) after their name). I'm not saying a Google search says everything, but it does indicate that most sources and maps do show the UK and not its four CCs. If anything, it's saying that the CCs are equivalent to countries like France and Poland that's OR. SiBr₄ (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support – That section of the template is titled "Sovereign states" and in no way are England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland Sovereign. The UK is a sovereign state formed from the union of four countries that were previously sovereign. While that may or may not be interesting, why is it germane to the list of sovereign states of Europe? While "country" is a somewhat nebulous term and though the word is commonly used to refer to sovereign states, sometimes it's used to refer to other political entities. The constituent countries of the UK are countries in a "political entities" sense, but it's very clear they are not sovereign states, so why give them exceptional treatment (by default) in that section? Under the proposed change, if there's a special situation where it makes sense to use the template that way, it's certainly still an option, just not the default. Mojoworker (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support – I agree with others. The UK shouldn't get the special treatment. United States Man (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support – agree with others. follow precident. BoogaLouie (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Close?

I believe that there is consensus in favour of change here. Can we accept this, or do we need to start looking at formal closure? Kahastok talk 10:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that there's enough support to non-formally close it, though I'm not experienced enough with RfCs to be sure. Also, the default 30 days are over tomorrow. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kahastok: I'll assume I can close it myself now, if no-one minds. SiBr₄ (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implementation

Yesterday and today I've made the proposed change and updated articles on "split" sports to explicitly include the UK's constituent countries. If anyone thinks any other article should really show them, they can use the parameter |UK_only=no, or ask me to add it using AWB if it's a lot of articles. I didn't change the religion articles yet since I don't know which exact religions need the parameter. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SiBr4 can you edit the individual links as well, so that they can be edited to show one of the countries even if UK_only isn't activated? CMD (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to find a way to do that. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done and documented. Should work now. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Svalbard

is included because ... ?!? Knisfo (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

...it has a special status because of the Svalbard Treaty even though it's fully part of Norway? I don't know, but it was already included in the very first version of this template from December 2005. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Welsh artists

Could someone fix the loss of Scotland/Wales/NIR on the List of Welsh artists article template. I've tried all permutations unsuccessfully. Sionk (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the article uses the specialized template {{European artists}}, a pass-through parameter |UK_only={{{UK_only|}}} must be added to that template to make UK_only work on the List of Welsh artists article. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh / Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

The template {{Europe topic}} links to Nagorno-Karabakh, but the template {{Asia topic}} links to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Due to the existence of separate articles for Nagorno-Karabakh and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and due just Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is state with limited recognition, I think that the solution in {{Asia topic}} is more correct. Anyway, both templates should refer to the same article. It is now in the references unnecessary confusion. Thanks. Jan CZ (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you and had it changed. Please tell me if I did it properly as I'm not very familiar with this kind of template and I'm not sure if I ruined anything with my edit. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine. I put a "the" in so it would hit article titles that have correct grammar. CMD (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

List of universities in Northern Ireland

Could someone add this? Gbawden (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done. There was no need to add it here, but I've enabled all the UK's constituent contries at the wrapper template {{List of universities in Europe}}. You can do that with all these Europe topic templates by adding |UK_only=no as a template parameter in the article where the template is called. De728631 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Theatre of Greece

This template, as used in articles such as Theatre of Poland, links to Theatre of Greece, which is a disambiguation page. How can this best be disambiguated to point to Modern Greek theatre? Nick Number (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You can use |GR=Modern Greek theatre as a parameter. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That did it. Many thanks. Nick Number (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Prehistoric Europe

Is there some way to make this daughter template "|UK_only=no" by default? There is no 'prehistoric United Kingdom' by definition. Ben MacDui 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Soviet Union years

Shouldn't there be a Year in the Soviet union link on the template for years 1922-1990?Kges1901 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

This template only includes currently existing countries and territories. Use the template {{Year in Europe}} instead for "Year in country" articles, since that does change its list of countries based on the input year:

SiBr₄ (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Caucasus states opt-in

While I don't oppose disabling states with tiny or no parts in Europe by default, this edit by Dbachmann is a fairly radical one I disagree with for several reasons:

• It was done inconsistently. Azerbaijan and Abkhazia were left opt-out while the others (Georgia, Armenia, NKR, South Ossetia) were made opt-in. If the criterion is that only states entirely in Asia are omitted by default, Georgia should be changed back since it's also partly in Europe.
• No change to the documentation page was made to explain that/how the changed entries can be activated.
• To more easily add the Caucasian states, I think there should be an option (maybe |Caucasus=yes) to activate them all at once – |AM=yes|GE=yes|NKR=yes|SO=yes is kind of cumbersome.

SiBr₄ (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. But I'd add that Abkhazia is entirely on the Asian side of the Caucasian watershed (so, if that's the split, it should go opt-in). I'd also question Kazakhstan, whose European territory is relatively small and thinly-populated: I might be inclined to make it opt-in (but I won't push it).

There is a question of these options being used for POV purposes, which we should discourage if possible.

Finally, note that Cyprus is - geographically-speaking - fairly unambiguously in Asia, but it's so commonly treated as European that it should probably be included be default. Kahastok talk 13:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above concerns, either consistently apply the same argument to Turkey, Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, SO, NK, NC and Abkhazia or don't at all.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Georgia is not "partly in Europe". Georgia is a member of various European organisations, this is true, but it is not geographically in Europe (apart from some glacier or rock face in the Caucasus just reaching across the watershed). If there is no consensus for my proposed consensus of "opt-in", I suppose we'll just remove the non-European entries again. I would remind you that this is supposed to be a template focussing on Europe in the geographical sense (not EU, not "Western world", but geographically Europe). --dab (𒁳) 06:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

EU/Non-EU

I suggest making a separate bracket for EU sovereign states and non-EU sovereign states, since EU has the common minimum standard regarding gun laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation#European_Union

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There are countless national and international uses for this template; I don't think the structure should be determined by gun laws. bobrayner (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Red Links

Hey, Not sure if this is the place to put this but when this template appears in English_tort_law all the links are red, but they work perfectly fine in Template:Europe_topic. --Jaffacakemonster53 (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Template scope

The scope of the template is clearly geographical, i.e. it lists entities that are at least partially in Europe geographically. Case in point, the Faroe islands are listed, and Greenland isn't. Both are regionally autonomous within Denmark, but Faroe is "in Europe", while Greenland isn't. Membership in this or that "European" club doesn't enter into it, or there would be no end to additions, rendering the template even more useless than it is now. Georgia is an "intercontinental" country because it has a few square feet north of the Caucasus watershed. It is rather stretching the concept to list it as "in Europe" based on that, but technically we have to concede it is "transcontinental". This is no excuse to keep adding Armenia, which has not a square inch of geographically European territory no matter how many times it participates in the Eurovision Song Contest (we aren't including Israel as "in Europe" because its football team is in the UEFA either).

Please stick to this, or else explain what the rationale for inclusion should be instead of geography, and try to find consensus for whatever it is you are proposing (after duly considering what will need to be changed, are we going to list Greenland, French Guyana, Israel or Mururoa following your proposal?). --dab (𒁳) 09:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The template doesn't have a "clearly geographical scope" at all; it is used in hundreds of topics, some of which Armenia is considered European in (not least sports). Israel is actually included, but is opt-in. All other countries are already opt-out by means of the country-specific parameters (so Armenia can be removed in topic-specific wrappers using |AM=). I'd support making Armenia and the NKR (and the rest of the Caucasus for that matter) opt-in as well, if consensus is reached and care is taken to update transclusions, but they shouldn't be deleted entirely. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2015

Please, change [[Corruption in Georgia (country)]] to [[Corruption in Georgia]]

80.241.251.138 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Per the warning at the top of this page, that can't be changed in this navbox itself. I've solved it by redirecting Corruption in Georgia (country) to Corruption in Georgia; you can add |GE=Corruption in Georgia to the navbox invocation in the article to avoid a self-redirect. SiBr₄ (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Former European countries

Hi guys, I have added four major former European countries to the template: Czechoslovakia, East Germany, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. I have found that the topics on the countries have no navbox at the bottom of their articles and thought it would be good to include them in this template. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this, given the sheer number of former states in Europe and what their inclusion would entail. Is it possible to make that whole section an opt-in if it must be included? CMD (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If we have to have it, make it opt-in. But better not to have it - how far does it go? The Roman Empire? Sparta? Better to leave it out altogether. Kahastok talk 18:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I am against the inclusion of selected former States. It is unsystematic. Not in consistency with other continental templates. Jan CZ (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jan Mayen

I suggest to add Jan Mayen. It is unincorporated territory of Norway, it is not part of Svalbard. He is missing in the template. Jan CZ (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Unlike Svalbard Jan Mayen is under no international treaties. Why should it be included? CMD (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

CMD is right. As Jan Mayen is a part of the Kingdom of Norway (Nordland county) and is not autonomous we don't need an entry in a navbox for sovereign states and autonomous territories. De728631 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Jan Mayen is not part of (Nordland county), it is only administered from it. Jan Mayen is unincorporated area. It is listed on List of dependent areas, it is listed on CIA World Factbook separately as country [6]. It is alone European territory listed in this lists which not given to our template.

This template is not "for sovereign states and autonomous territories", but for sovereign states, dependencies and other territories. Jan CZ (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I see. Per that list, "the legal status of Jan Mayen is basically the same as the Svalbard archipelago, and unlike the Norwegian possessions in the Antarctic, which are dependencies and not integral parts of the Kingdom." So we should in fact include Jan Mayen in the "other territories" section of the template like Svalbard. De728631 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is also one article Telephone numbers in Jan Mayen that would justify the inclusion of an entry in the Europe topic navbox for practical reasons, but if we include it we should make it opt-in so the major number of occurences of this template will not show a red link. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

We do not list every territory, just ones we feel we have special reason to. Jan Mayen lacks any unique international agreements like that about Svalbard, so their international positions are different even if official domestic ones aren't. CMD (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We have all coutries from List of dependent areas or CIA World Factbook included in the continental templates. With the exception of the unihabited possesions like Clipperton or Midway Islands. I think add of Jan Mayen into the template formally is OK. But its inclusion may cause a variety of red links, tt is true. I don't know how many functional links (as to Telephone numbers in Jan Mayen) can be established. Eventual functional links can be practical reasons for inclusion. Jan CZ (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I question why Jan Mayen is on List of dependent areas, rather than why it's not here. CMD (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

German National Library

In the template for the European national libraries the German link is currently National Library of Germany which is a redirect to the article title, German National Library. Could this be fixed to point directly to the article? I don't know how to and, even if I did, it does state that it'd probably be best if you'd ask about it there too anyway, to avoid arguments. Regards, Calistemon (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Not really, everything in the template links to the same pattern, in the library case "National Library of X". CMD (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Calistemon (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You can change the link target using |DE=German National Library in the invocations of the template. Since a lot of the links in the national libraries navbox are redirects, a solution could be to use a wrapper template {{National libraries of Europe}} instead of directly using Europe topic in the articles. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed now. It took me a while to understand what you meant because I just don't really know how this template works, to be honest, but I got there in the end. Thanks for your help, much appreciated, Calistemon (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Very Sophisticated WP syntax

Northern Cyprus has List of universities and colleges in Northern Cyprus page. I wanted to add this to this template. But template's syntax is so complex. So how to add it to this template?Woodgridge (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

What page are you trying to add it to? CMD (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

unemployment in europe seems badly done

at present the Unemployment at the european countries reads red for most of them, yet there are articles like this one Jobseeker's Allowance for the UK, the template should be fixed to point to the relevant articles and not a generic name that does not apply - this is complicated as redirects may solve the issue, but would be a pain to do every page, so template needs fixing somehow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.68.97 (talk) 02:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Unemployment in Poland is the only article that uses this template to link to "Unemployment in ..." pages. Given the sparsity of bluelinks, I'd suggest removing the template entirely; the three existing pages (the UK and Spain being the others) are still linked by a category. A navbox for the Jobseeker's Allowance and other countries' equivalents is better made from scratch. SiBr₄ (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

UK as the end of the list

When the United Kingdom is the last country of the list, an unwanted dot appears after UK. Please see Postal codes in Armenia. Can it be removed? --Quest for Truth (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Quest for Truth, yes, now fixed. we could probably do the same for all of them, but the VA one is common since there is the additional check for existence of the article. Frietjes (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! In theory we should assume every country may not have their own subtopic article. But in practice the UK almost always have its subtopic article because of the common language between this Wikipedia and the UK, the significance of the UK, and the large number of editors from UK on Wikipedia. So we can practically treat the UK as an entry that will always appear on the list. --Quest for Truth (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016

For some reason this template is protected.

The template has a link, in the sovereign states section, to "Prehistoric the United Kingdom" which is not only bad grammar, but also bad coding. There is apparently a redirect page for Prehistoric the United Kingdom. However, that goes directly to Prehistoric Britain, which clearly does not include the prehistory of the whole of the United Kingdom.

It's currently tacky and inaccurate.

My suggestion is that it be changed to point directly to Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles, which includes all of the territory of the United Kingdom, and also has links right at the top to articles, which also exist, about the individual islands.

In the meantime, I will try to change the redirect over at Prehistoric the United Kingdom, if I'm allowed.

98.122.20.56 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: {{Europe topic}} generates a navigation template for a given topic. It's used for lots of different topics. It's the caller of the template who must specify different links for chosen countries. For example, {{Europe topic|prefix=Prehistoric|countries_only=yes|GB=Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles}} produces the link you want. See the result below. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems that generalising and setting tables up as objects within objects has its disadvantages! Thanks though - that seems to be the code needed. I'll attempt a change to the relevant page(s).

Note that it might be a good idea to change the Europe topic template, so that other pages aren't automatically broken like this when used in the future. I notice that Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Republic of Ireland, Faroe Islands, Isle of Man, European Union, etc all have this as a potential problem. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh and Georgia (country) also has a potential problem. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I have created {{Prehistoric Europe}} to call {{Europe topic|prefix=Prehistoric}} with various customized country links. I'm changing pages to only use {{Prehistoric Europe}}. Please customize links there. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Double dot without Israel.

If the template is used without including Israel, there are two dots between Ireland and Italy. Can the dot be added into the Israel only part of the Template?Naraht (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

folks, the Supreme Court of Italy and higher than the one corrently enlisted, is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Court_of_Italy Eyesbomb~itwiki (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Eyesbomb~itwiki: Please clarify which page you want changed from what to what. Are you unhappy with Supreme Court of Italy redirecting to Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy) and not to Constitutional Court of Italy? Many articles use the code {{Europe topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of Europe|countries_only=yes|template=yes}} which produces the below. It cannot be changed by editing Template:Europe topic. It's easy to change the redirect but I don't know whether that would be appropriate when Supreme Court of Cassation (Italy) is the article with "Supreme Court" in the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

European Union

Some people want to split this template into EU and non-EU. There's been a bit of an edit war, so I thought I'd kick off discussion.

I think this should not be done because this template is very widely used and I don't see that the division between EU and non-EU is so unique that it alone needs to be flagged up here. Kahastok talk 18:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. EU versus non-EU is fairly irrelevant for most of the uses, and EU members are still sovereign states. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Liechtenstein should link to Switzerland

... in the case of road rules, as in{{Europe topic|Road signs in}}. Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Europe topic|Road signs in}} creates a link to Road signs in Liechtenstein. You can create a redirect to Road signs in Switzerland but then it should say more about Liechtenstein than a single "(Liechtenstein only)" in a caption, which by the way is otherwise in German and has a placeholder image so there is zero English content about Liechtenstein. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Two problems

See the template "Made in Europe" in Swiss made for an example.

1. The header links to Made in Europe - one of Deep Purple's best albums, but not exactly relevant.
2. Sweden links to Made in Sweden - which is a DAB page with four entries (an album, a band, a film and a TV series), none of which have anything to do with manufacture in Sweden. Unsurprisingly, User:DPL bot has complained. Narky Blert (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I am guessing you fixed this since I can't figure out the source of any particular problem. "what links here" isn't returning anything related to this template, outside of this talk page. Frietjes (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Frietjes: I didn't fix the problems, but some kind editor seems to have done so. However, I've just noticed that Switzerland in the template links to Swiss Made, which is a circular link back to Swiss made and thus not black-bolded. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The "Made in Europe" navbox was removed.[7] Use the "V T E" links in the "Country of origin" template to see, discuss or change the links there. Category:Country of origin has potential links. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: TY. I've made that tiny tweak to Template:COO - same target, but a direct link to it. Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Regions of Germany

Regions of Germany is a DAB page. It is linked through the template in Outline of Europe#Regions of Europe. User:DPL bot reports the link as a WP:INTDABLINK error. Can it be fixed? Narky Blert (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed with |DE=Regierungsbezirk to link Regierungsbezirk for Germany.[8] PrimeHunter (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Former states

I want Trade unions in the Soviet Union to show up in the nav box "Trade unions in Europe" ({{Europe topic|Trade unions in}}). But I can't figure out how to make former states show up there. Can someone help? Karmanatory (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Karmanatory: Former countries were only supported in January–February 2016. They were removed after Template talk:Europe topic/Archive 4#Former European countries.[9] They were only partially removed from the documentation. I have removed them completely.[10] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Fault

Could someone with better knowledge than my own explain why the "Fire Services in Europe" infobox, based on this template, doesn't include Vatican City? See it, for example, at the bottom of this page: Fire fighting in Finland. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 13:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Europe topic#Vatican City. Vatican City is only included if the expected page name for {{Europe topic|Fire services in}} exists. I have created a redirect from Fire services in Vatican City to Corps of Firefighters of the Vatican City State. You could also have linked it directly without the redirect with {{Europe topic|Fire services in|VA=Corps of Firefighters of the Vatican City State}}. But without a redirect this would have to be repeated in each article calling {{Europe topic}} directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm not sure I entirely agree with the reasoning, but it is good to have the explanation. Thank you also for sorting the specific issue here - I'm most grateful. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

hlist, below lines not working - Template:Catholic Church in Europe

Greetings, The two Portal lines do not show for belowclass = hlist using this template. After numerous attempts, I am still not able to get this "below" line to appear. Asking for Expert Help to solve the issue. Many of the Catholicism templates use "Navbox" template with Groups & Lists. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

{{Europe topic}} has no below or belowclass parameters and doesn't claim to have it. We could easily pass them on to {{Navbox}} with this:

| below = {{{below|}}}
| belowclass = {{{belowclass|}}}

Should we? I examined several in Category:Configurable area-topic templates. The only who did it was {{United States topic}}. If one continent template does it then users will expect all to do it so we might have to make the same edits to several templates. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry PrimeHunter that I don't understand what any of this means. I was hoping there is an easy fix to enable "below" line to show on this template. Should I take this issue to "WP"VPT"? 13:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason for WP:VPT. I know how it works but wait to see if others express an opinion. A template call can only use parameters which are implemented in the template code. below is currently not implemented in {{Europe topic}}, and hasn't been requested in the 12 years the template has existed. It would be easy to implement with the above code but one of the issues with {{Europe topic}} is that it's often called directly by articles and then all articles for the same topic would have to add the same below parameter to be consistent. That probably wouldn't happen in practice and then you get confusing results where the "same" navbox has different content on different articles. For example, dozens of articles like Time in Norway say {{Europe topic|Time in}}. If one of the articles add a below parameter then it would only appear in that article. Your example {{Catholic Church in Europe}} wouldn't have this problem if articles call that template and automatically get the same below parameter from there. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Kazakhstan is in Asia

Xx236 (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia

I believe that all entries in Limited Recognition are recognized by at least one United Nations state and Catalonia is not so recognized. Limited Not equal Zero...Naraht (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the recognition by the Gambia was a fake. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Transnistria is not recognized by at least one United Nations state member state and it is in the list.

So same we can't use different treatment between Transnistria and Catalonia. Catalonia existed 100's of years as an autonomous region, much more than the other entities. It declared 5 times it's independence in history. And is much bigger than the other entities in the list. It's government is elected fully democratically to represent the Catalan people in universally recognized elections. It is recognized by the majority of the catalan people and it's independence is result of a referendum. That's more than many of the other entities in this list. So there is no reason to not include it...--Niele~enwiki (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

But even more important is that pages as Religion_in_Catalonia, Outline_of_Catalonia, Flag_of_Catalonia, Football in Catalonia, List of airports in Catalonia,... and even Rugby_union_in_Catalonia exist and Catalonia is important part/entity in Europe. These pages should be navigable (visible in template) by both people that see Catalonia as part of Spain or as independent state. Just like other similar entities.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There are many different pages for *sub*-national regions that are of the form Flag of, Football in or for that matter Rugby union in Cornwall. And the comparison is between Transnistria in 2017 and Catalonia of 2017. If the Spanish Military were denied access to all of Catalonia to the degree that the Moldovan military is denied access to Transnistria, that would be a start.Naraht (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Naraht. Catalonia is Spain, catalans are spaniards and have spanish identity cards. Catalonia have not a place in this template.--Alfredalva (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

In Communism in Poland, this template is linking directly to the DAB page Communism in Germany. The link should go through the redirect Communism in Germany (disambiguation) to remove the WP:INTDAB error and to stop User:DPL bot complaining about it. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Done with |DE=Communism in Germany (disambiguation).[11] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Defunct states

Telephone numbers in Soviet Union and Yugoslavia are important articles but Template:Telephone_numbers_in_Europe does not include them, forcing me to subst this template. I am not experienced so cannot edit this template directly without causing some problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ywwuyi (talk • contribs)

 Not done: Telephone numbers in Europe and Template:Telephone numbers in Europe are for current countries in Europe, a category with does not include the USSR or SFRY. If you want to discuss including former nations of Europe in that template, the proper place is at Template talk:Telephone numbers in Europe, not here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Another link to a DAB page

In Historical regions of Romania, this template is linking to the DAB page Historical regions of Spain.

I'm not sure of the best solution to this problem. The DAB page is a mess, and it might be preferable to turn it into a broad concept article like that Romanian one rather than to edit the template. That would also have the advantage that this template could be included in it. (Per MOS:DABICON, templates shouldn't be placed on DAB pages.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It may be a bad idea to use {{Europe topic}} at all on Historical regions of Romania when only current country names are displayed and nearly all links are red. It isn't used on any of the other articles. The way to avoid a direct link to the dab page is |es=Historical regions of Spain (disambiguation). What else to do is beyond this talk page. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:DPL bot is reporting that link to Historical regions of Spain as a WP:INTDAB error. It needs to be fixed. Narky Blert (talk) 02:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added |ES=Historical regions of Spain (disambiguation).[12] I incorrectly wrote lowercase |es= earlier. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 March 2018

I suggest changing the link to universities in Belarus from Universities in Belarus, which is a stub, to List of universities in Belarus. 46.53.211.40 (talk) 21:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

this is a meta-template which generates links based on a pattern. you need to make changes downstream to change the link targets for a particular invocation (e.g., like this). Frietjes (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Life improsonment in Europe

When the template displays as "Life imprisonment in Europe" it includes the link Life imprisonment in the United Kingdom which redirects to Life imprisonment in England and Wales. Can the template be changed to shew and use Life imprisonment in England and Wales please? I have no idea how this template works - it is monstrously complicated. DuncanHill (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have fixed the call in Life imprisonment in England and Wales to say {{Europe in topic|Life imprisonment in|GB=Life imprisonment in England and Wales}} so it triggers the bold selflink feature there. Every call in other articles would have to be changed to avoid the redirect in those articlecs. I don't think that is worth the edits. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That's still wrong though, as it links to the E&W article but displays as UK. I take it that when we have the articles Life imprisonment in Scotland and Life imprisonment in Northern Ireland the template won't be able to cope with them either? DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Europe topic#Enabling links for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales can make separate links but none of the four targets have their own article so I see no reason. The template is meant to display alphabetical names of European countries including the United Kingdom. The link targets can be changed but not the displayed names. I wouldn't support replacing "United Kingdom" even if it was possible. Readers are likely to look for it under U. Life imprisonment in England and Wales appears to be the one article we have about the United Kingdom, and it also mentions Scotland. The small Northern Ireland is the only unmentioned part. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

this works as well. Frietjes (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Adding Catalonia in "Dependencies and other entities"

Hi, could you please add Catalonia in "Dependencies and other entities", we have a "very particular way to say the time" similar to "the classical german way".--Mcapdevila (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm agree, there are many articles of Catalonia which are analogous to other nations, such as airports of Catalonia, symbols, civil code, different sports... if the addition of Catalonia is annoying to anyone, I suggest to modifiy the tittle "Dependencies and other entities" with "Dependencies, autonomous areas and other entities". --Jacobí (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 July 2018

Place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Corruption_in_the_United_Kingdom as the link in the template for Corruption in UK (currently showing as "Page does not exist, which is not true) 144.15.255.227 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The article Corruption in the United Kingdom can be created with an overview of the articles in that category. Readers would likely expect to be taken to an article after clicking the link in the navbox. Also, from a technical standpoint, a special case for just corruption and the UK would be a bad idea, especially when a nontechnical solution exists. (A special case would be unnecessarily complicated and would have to be updated when an article is written.) Enterprisey (talk!) 04:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

The transcluded template {{i2c}} is a redirect to {{iso2country}}. Although the cost of a single redirect is trivial, in this case (and in the other "Continent topic" templates too) it occurs multiple times within a template that's itself transcluded on thousands of pages; this means that the redirect has to be followed many times whenever any of those thousands of pages is viewed. That adds up to a significant unnecessary overhead. I therefore suggest that the code is changed to invoke {{iso2country}} directly. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 08:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Error and request

According to the template documentation, "By default, the link for Georgia includes the disambiguator "(country)". Set the parameter |template= to anything except "yes" to suppress this". As can readily be seen in the examples shown on the /doc page, this is not currently working. Links for Georgia do not include the disambiguator, and they should.

Also, there is a somewhat similar issue for the Republic of Ireland: there needs to be a way to control whether the words "Republic of" appear in the link. Currently, {{Europe topic}} without any arguments links to the article Ireland, when it should link to Republic of Ireland. Also, for another example, Education in the Republic of Ireland is an article, while Education in Ireland is a disambiguation page. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Both of the above issues appear to be related to the fact that {{iso2country}} was replaced earlier today with a redirect to {{ISO 3166 name}}. This is causing incorrect links on thousands of articles. I have reverted the template edit for now, to see if this can be fixed. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

In Slavery in Russia, this template calls the DAB page Slavery in Europe, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error. It isn't clear to me what the correct link should be. Narky Blert (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Special:WhatLinksHere/Slavery in Europe shows many articles where the same navbox uses the redirect Slavery in Europe (disambiguation) with {{Europe topic|Slavery in|title=[[Slavery in Europe (disambiguation)|Slavery in Europe]]}}. I did the same.[13] PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2018

Add a link to Category:Europe, Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe, and Portal:Europe at the bottom of the template. See the proposed changes at Template:Europe topic/sandbox. —Eli355 ( talk•contribs ) 18:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Link to wikiproject shouldn't be included per MOS:Internal links:"Do not create links to user, WikiProject, essay or draft pages in articles, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (see Self-references to avoid)." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: So just add links to Category:Europe and Portal:Europe. (proposed changes in Template:Europe topic/sandbox). —Eli355 ( talk•contribs ) 19:49, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose that as not relevant enough. The template is used in topic-specific navboxes like {{Public holidays in Europe}}, {{Television in Europe}}, {{Trade unions in Europe}}. The navboxes are used in country-specific articles like Public holidays in Andorra, Television in Finland, Trade unions in Armenia and so on. The articles have limited relevance to Europe in general. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Change Andorra to Police Corps of Andorra Vpab15 (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vpab15: This is a shell template that is transcluded on multiple navigational templates which are unrelated to police. I guess you want a bold selflink in the navbox at Police Corps of Andorra. I have made this with |AD=Police Corps of Andorra.[14] When the navbox is generated on other articles it can continue to use the redirect Law enforcement in Andorra. Is this OK? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 February 2019

Change all instances of Macedonia to North Macedonia to reflect rename. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 20:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We could change the displayed name to North Macedonia but it seems premature to change all links. The template is used in 8800 pages. Many of them have Macedonia links which work now but would be broken by saying North Macedonia. For example, Template:Football in Europe links to Football in the Republic of Macedonia while Football in North Macedonia is currently a red link. In specific instances you can use |MK= to link the wanted article directly. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 April 2019

Hi,

The Symbols of Europe template features on articles for National symbols of England, National symbols of Scotland and National symbols of Wales yet there is no link to these articles from the template. I Suggest an addition to follow the "United Kingdom" link, in brackets/parenthesis containing links to the three pages as exemplified by the Flags of Europe template (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Flags_of_Europe). I believe this is the accepted standard for templates featuring the UK.

As for Northern Ireland, the article linked as Ireland is in fact National symbols of Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am unsure of the protocol here, my solution would be another link to this article, named 'Northern Ireland' to appear alongside the UK alongside the three additions suggested above. But would be happy to open this to discussion or acquiesce to someone with better knowledge of the issues.

Thanks for your time and consideration. Cymrogogoch (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: I think this can already be done in the template invocation per the documentation in the template, but I can't make heads or tails of the documentation itself. Not done for now, and I suggest you take a look to see if you can make it work.

That aside, this whole series of topics templates seems needlessly complex in the name of supposed consistency. Izno (talk) 02:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding "|UK_only=no" to the template should allow for this, although I don't think it's consistent for symbols given many other subunits also have symbols and wouldn't be included. CMD (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 November 2019

Enhance template to include the Azores among Dependencies and other entities. Variations of the template already appear in articles such as Coat of arms of the Azores and Flag of the Azores.

(And for comparison, consider Hymn of the Azores is included in the Template:National anthems of Europe.) — HipLibrarianship ^talk 23:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Hiplibrarianship:  Done.  Not done:. Sorry, I got the previous discussions out of order when I originally answered this request. The current consensus seems to be to limit this template to entities recognized by ISO 3166-1, which the Azores are not. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Artsakh is already listed in the template, but not linked. Could an editor please assist, as an Index of Artsakh-related articles does exist. Index of Artsakh-related articles Many thanks! Archives908 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: {{Europe topic}} is a general template used to build more specific templates. I guess you refer to the "Index of Asia-related articles" navigation template on some articles like Index of Azerbaijan-related articles#See also. It is made with {{Europe topic|Index of|-related articles}} which automatically links Index of the Republic of Artsakh -related articles. I have created a redirect to Index of Artsakh-related articles. I have also made a fix [15] to {{Asia related articles index}} to link the article directly when that template is used. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it is very much appreciated!Archives908 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

Why is Kosovo treated differently than other states with limited recognition? There is a #ifexist test which will hide Kosovo (probably in the absence of link), however it is the only state to be treated this way and all other countries and states are, shown albeit with a red link. This seems to come from this edit, which I suggest reverting. I see no reason to treat Kosovo differently. Place Clichy (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have reverted this change. The existence check might be a good idea, but we should probably treat all countries in that group consistently. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 July 2020

I would like to fix the link for the Bosnian government in the template, as is it seems that is it is linked as Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and not Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. If I can not edit it, than it would be nice if someone else did it. Kirbapara (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not needed. Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina redirects to Council of Ministers of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, this template is automated in such a way that it takes the wikilink of "Government of <country>", so adding an additional exception for a single country would just be unnecessarily complicated. De728631 (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

The 2021 in Ireland article has just been created. I would like the new article to be added on the template. Thanks. — Edl-irishboy (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a flexible template that doesn't by itself link to specific articles. Article links should be generated automatically if the template is used correctly. What page are you noticing a link is not appearing on? CMD (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Edl-irishboy: I saw the navbox at the bottom of 2021 in Ireland had a red link to 2021 in the Republic of Ireland. I have redirected it to 2021 in Ireland. Note however that other articles in Category:2021 in Europe like 2021 in Germany use {{Year in Europe|2021}}. It automatically links a "Decade in " or "History of" article if there is no 2021 article for a country. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

If Israel is missing, there are two separators between Ireland and Italy, ("Ireland - - Italy"), this extra separator should be removed. -> ("Ireland - Italy") Bogger (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Bogger (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can you point to a page where this is happening? It doesn't show like that for me on the base template. CMD (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bogger: Also name your browser, and your skin at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The template does produce an asterisk alone on a line, resulting in the html <li class="mw-empty-elt"></li>. It doesn't have any effect in the default Vector skin in any of my five browsers but in timeless and modern I see two centered dots in Firefox. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Marriage in the Republic of Ireland, appears in chrome, only when logged in. Timeless skin Bogger (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I also see it there in Timeless. A simpler example:

<div class="hlist">
* A
* 
* C
</div>

This produces:

• A
• C

I see two dots in Timeless. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk

Should we add Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR under "states with limited recognition"? Jonashtand (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

These templates follow other articles such as List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition in regards to inclusion of those entities. CMD (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Request

Hi editors, if someone can kindly add Intellectual Property Agency of Armenia to "Armenia" in the template listed below. It would be much appreciated. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Archives908: The code automatically makes a link to Patent office in Armenia. I have redirected it to Intellectual Property Agency of Armenia. In that article I have added code to produce bold text instead of a link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Switzerland is currently a redlink to Symbols of Switzerland. An article exists at National symbols of Switzerland. Request: Change Switzerland link to National symbols of Switzerland. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@RoanokeVirginia: This is controlled in the call and not in {{Europe topic}}. I have redirected Symbols of Switzerland to National symbols of Switzerland. A direct link in all articles wold require a change in all of them. All current country links use redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PrimeHunter, I am new to this aspect of Wikipedia and appreciate the assistance RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 May 2021

Aland and Svalbard are red linked in this template, but they have Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't they have regular links? It appears to be uncontroversial to me (unless I'm missing something that should be obvious. Thanks. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Ira Leviton, which page are you seeing this on? Whether an article exists for a given country will depend on the topic. Often, the answer is to set up a redirect from the page that this template links to, pointing at the real article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

As noted, this template never actually links to the country Wikipedia articles, but to a sub-article. The redlinks in most cases indicate work still to be done! CMD (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It's on Template:Music of Europe, which is in the collapsed state at the bottom of articles like Music of Croatia and Music of Italy. Ira Leviton (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no Music of Åland or Music of Svalbard articles, which is why those links are red. CMD (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

CMD I will slap myself in the forehead for not realizing that the links go to the articles for the music of the country, not the country itself. Thanks for your quick reply. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

Please change the link The United Kingdom to United Kingdom, per WP:NAVNOREDIRECT. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: @DuncanHill: This template is used to build other templates where there is usually something in front of the country, and the UK article is named "... the United Kingdom". For example, {{Politics of Europe}} links Politics of the United Kingdom. If you are concerned about the appearance in a specific article or template then please link it. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

The "Index of Europe–related articles" template (see below) is not currently linked to Index of Artsakh-related articles. If an editor could kindly assist linking them. Much appreciated, Archives908 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirect created. CMD (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 February 2022

Request to link Ireland to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Eircode_routing_areas_in_Ireland in the template https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:List_of_postal_codes_in_Europe BaronNethercross (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Fixed by creating a redirect at List of postal codes in the Republic of Ireland. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:List of postal codes in Europe is not protected. I have added |IE=List of Eircode routing areas in Ireland [16] to specify the target of the Ireland link. That means it becomes a bold selflink when the template is used on List of Eircode routing areas in Ireland (where I have just added it). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Change Ireland link to Names of the Irish state after page move. —Legoless (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Links here are automatic, so the redirect will have to do. CMD (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2022

• What I think should be changed: Add Prussia, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia into the list, that can be trigger by using template parameter like |old_states=yes (Similar but opposite in functionality compares to |no_SMOM=yes), or specific codes for each old states like |SU=yes (Similar to Israel's parameter)
• Why it should be changed: So that articles like Cinema of Yugoslavia or Science and technology in the Soviet Union can be linked from relevant templates with ease.

C933103 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template.

This would require discussion to get consensus about which countries to include and how to list them. Former countries in Europe after 1815 is long and List of former sovereign states#Europe is longer. There are few relevant articles about Prussia and everything else before 1945. If we do add an option for former countries then I think it should be limited to recent and significant countries: Czechoslovakia (1918–1992), East Germany (1949–1990), Soviet Union (1922–1991), Yugoslavia (1919–1992/2006). They should be listed separately, maybe under "Former countries". PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried to search about Czechslocakia and East Germany but didn't result in anything meaningful. Prussia had some redirects but now I look deeper into it it seems like they mostly point back to sections in the Prussia article itself. Hence, probably only Yugoslavia and Soviet Union are worth including for the time being, due to number of articles about them. C933103 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

This seems unworkable, there are hundreds of former European countries, let alone former countries in other templates. Sticking to existing entities is a simple and understandable benchmark. CMD (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Then is it possible to add a parameter to this template, so that when other templates are using this template, they can use the parameter like |historical_states=[[Science and technology in the Soviet Union]], [[Science and technology in Yugoslavia]]" to output | group5 = Historical states|| list5 =[[Science and technology in the Soviet Union]], [[Science and technology in Yugoslavia]], to allow higher degree of freedom when creating templates while removing the problem of having to select what old countries to be included? C933103 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)