Template talk:North America topic/Archive 1

Archive 1

This template is in need of reform

This template is a big red link generator. There are articles that do cover things "in" a place that are not named that way. Granted there are many uses of the template that do generate mostly blue links, and for articles that are supposed to follow a name that includes "in", I think the usage needs to be cleaned up. You can see examples of both via Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:North America in topic. I was thinking about nominating this for TfD, but I'd rather try to work something out instead. Ideas? -- Ned Scott 05:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that what would be desirable is not a reform of this template, which as you say works fine for many uses, but guidelines for applying it in a useful way.

Where there are series of articles by country for which this template is not suitable - typically because they are in [[Canadian x]] format, I might suggest creating another template. Note that the article name doesn't have to include "in" - the format simply needs to be [[x country]].

Where there are templates for which only a few articles have been created, I would suggest considering whether it would be possible and desirable to eventually create a complete or near-complete series. If so, then the red links are useful, and if there are just a few small states where a full article on a particular topic will never be warranted, redirects can be put in place to the broader article which covers the issue. If articles are only possible or desirable for one, or a small number of nations, then the template should not be used on that page. Warofdreams talk 23:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns raised above, the template does work well for several topics but it can generate a ton of red links when it is not used with care. I would say the template should only be used on topics where it does not generate many red links unless there is a concerted ongoing effort to write the missing articles and place the needed redirects. A red link may be useful to Wikipedia editors but from a users perspective a red link is a broken link. Here's a list of the topics that it appears to work reasonably well in:

Economy

Geography

History

Politics

List of cities

List of political parties

Transportation

And here's some that it currently works poorly in:

Buddhism

Capital punishment

Censorship

Civil unions

Environmental issues

Extreme points

Foreign aid

Gay rights

Hinduism

History of the Jews

Human rights

Islam

Law enforcement

List of airports

Protestants

Religion

Roman Catholicism

Surf breaks

The template itself is fine but it's being misused. I'd suggest that a list of recommended topics be maintained for this template (perhaps in a usage section within 'noinclude' tags on the template) and it's use otherwise be discouraged. --Dv82matt 14:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with having such strict rules. Many of these topics would merits articles on each country in North America - in the case of List of airports in..., almost half of the potential articles already exist. Red links are not a problem; they are a good thing when they point to an article which should exist. By the way, thanks for your work in adding the template to the List of political parties in... series of articles. Warofdreams talk 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well some usage guidelines aren't out of line IMO. The topic should at least be broad enough that a full article is warranted for each country listed.

Take "List of airports in..." which you defend, for example. You might say its not too bad, only about half of the links in the template are red, but look at some of the blue links. Antigua and Barbuda has only three airports, Dominica and Grenada have only two each, there are several other extremely short lists of airports also in the template. Do we really want to have a seperate list of airports for each country even when there are only two or three airports in a given country? And if the answer to this question is "yes" then it is simple enough to include "List of airports" in the list of recommended topics for this template.

You say that red links are not a problem, but they are only not a problem if they indicate articles that should be created. If the template is used to spam red links or spurs the creation of inappropriate articles which later have to be deleted or merged then it could be a serious problem.

I really like this template, it encourages uniformity across topics, it's simple and easy to use, and it allows updates to a single central template rather than several topical ones. That said it does have some drawbacks as well. It's fragile, it generates inappropriate red links if not used with care, and it often relies on redirects to link it to the appropriate articles.

There are many ways other than a list of recommended topics, to effectively deal with the drawbacks while keeping most of the advantages it provides. For example we could merely provide usage guidelines without a set list, or it could be used as a template generator rather than as an actual template. What do you think? --Dv82matt 07:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, some usage guidelines are exactly what I have previously suggested, that we should only have red links to articles which should be created. Some of the subjects with few articles on North American countries at present, such as Islam in, History of the Jews in, or Gay rights in, are well represented in other areas of the world, and it seems likely that decent articles for the other North American states will be written at some point. Subjects such as Surf breaks in seem unlikely to merit an article per country, but this is a subject of which I know little, so I may be mistaken.

It's not hard to think of subjects where this template would be inappropriate - for instance, Fashion in, as fashion articles are not divided by nation; or Maya in, as articles could only be written for a few nations.

I think the usage guidelines are the way forward, as using this as a template generator would make it very time-consuming to update in the way that Template:Europe topic was recently, when Montenegro gained independence. Warofdreams talk 23:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm glad we agree there should be some guidelines. I guess I just have a harder time than you seeing the need for articles such as Islam in Navassa Island, History of the Jews in Costa Rica, or Gay Rights in Saint Lucia. I suspect that many such articles would be deleted or merged if they were created making the red links misleading. Leaving aside particulars for now what do you think of the following.

Guidelines:

1. Before implementing this template in a topic check it for red links. If there are several red links consider whether a seperate article in the topic for each country is warranted.
2. Some topics may use a different navigational scheme. In general don't use this template if there are already navigational templates in several of the articles of a topic.

--Dv82matt 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I like those guidelines. I almost feel inspired to write History of the Jews in Costa Rica - there's a useful webpage providing an overview! But more generally, where there are a only small number of territories where an article is not useful, a redirect can be created to the article where the topic is covered - e.g. Islam in a country with very few Muslims might redirect to Religion in, or Navassa Island in many topics might redirect to the main Navassa Island article. Warofdreams talk 02:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add them to the template then. As to redirecting to a more general article I think thats fine as long as it isn't overused. These types of redirects can be quite misleading to the user. For example if "History of the Jews in..." redirects to the "History of..." article and the "History of..." article makes no mention of the Jews. --Dv82matt 03:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Music of

Warofdreams reverted my addition of this comment, presumably accidentally as he posted at about the same time.

I have reverted this template's use on all Music ofs. There are already nice footers that use ordinary musical regions, of which "North America" including Mexico, Panama and Haiti is not one. Tuf-Kat 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the mix-up about your post, but the software didn't give me any warnings. Warofdreams talk 00:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought they would be useful, but I can see that on many of the articles they are somewhat redundant. Should there be a seperate Music in "whatever" template that would cover the countries left out of the current template? Sorry for the trouble anyway. --Dv82matt 00:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No apology necessary -- I am certain you were acting in good faith. I don't really think so. It's reasonable to provide easy linking between related topics like all the musics of the Caribbean or Central America, but Music of Haiti is more related to Music of France or Music of West Africa than Music of Canada. Plus the template leaves out very related topics -- Music of Guyana and Music of Suriname are usually considered part of the Caribbean music area, for example, and are much more relevant there than connected with Argentina and Chile. Continental divisions are useful for physical geography, but are not necessarily the best way to organize things in other fields. Tuf-Kat 01:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait I misunderstood your question. You mean countries like the US and Canada that don't have a footer. I don't think so for that too. AFAIK, the US, Canada and Mexico are the only ones missing any. A "North America" template could really only include the US and Canada, which wouldn't be much of a footer. Mexico is relevant to the US (not really Canada though, except through the US) but is just as relevant to Central America, and pretty distinct from both (it's usually classified separately, I think). A North America template that included music of Canada's Prairie Provinces and maybe even Music of Greenland would be okay, maybe, but many of the articles are pretty stubby or nonexistent (e.g. music of New England), and a regional division could be inflamatory. Tuf-Kat 01:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I'll leave it at that then. --Dv82matt 02:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Overriding the top level name

I added a second optional parameter, which if provided overrides the default name for the top level page. Example: Since there is not and probably never will be a "Flag of North America" page, on "Flag of" pages the template can be called:

. --ScottMainwaring 23:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays, to override the top level name, use title= before the string you wish to replace the top level name with. The Transhumanist 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Template name

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{North America topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{North America topic|Communications in}}, {{North America topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This Template is misleading

Many of the countries listed in this template are not generally categorized as being in North America , but in central America ( like Panama , Nicaragua etc..)--CltFn 05:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That narrow definition of North America is possible, but it's hardly misleading to use this broader one. This template is based on Template:North America, so that's probably the best place to post any further queries. Warofdreams talk 01:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Central America (Mexico and everything between it and Colombia) is part of the North American continent. Not including Colombia, of course. The Transhumanist 02:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Federalism

"Federalism" is a bad use for this template. Only four countries listed are federations: Canada, Mexico, SKN, US. Why would there be an article on "Federalism in (insert name of unitary state here)"? It makes no sense. —Sesel 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Navassa Island

Does Navassa Island need to come out of this template? The article on it is fine, but the idea that one day someone will be inspired to write History of Navassa Island, Economy of Navassa Island, Law of Navassa Island, etc. relating to an uninhabited rock off the coast of Haiti seems a bit improbable to me. It is like a permanent redlink. --Legis (talk - contributions) 18:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be fooled by the bluelink on History of Navassa Island - it is just a redirect. --Legis (talk - contributions) 18:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm contemplating going through the "Languages of North America" template and turning the red links blue, but there certainly won't be a blue link at Languages of Navassa Island. Could someone who understands template syntax better than I do maybe add a parameter like navassa=no to the template so that Navassa can be removed from the templates where it's inappropriate? —Angr 11:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP! I made a huge mistake.

OMG, I made a huge mistake. I was looking at the page Flags of North America and saw the template "Flags of North America" but it was named "North America topic", so I thought why? Let's move it to a more specific name... and I did! The bad part is that I didn't know that template is an automatic template used in several pages.

Please, some admin. move back the template to its original place. And I'm sorry, I didn't know this was going to happen. AlexC. ^{( Talk? )} 09:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I undid it. You didn't "fix" any double-redirects that now have to be "unfixed", did you? —Angr 10:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

US territories

This template is for North American nations and territories and not for US territories, such territories can be found in their continental own template Template:Oceania topic. JC 23:10 17 July 2008 (PST)

Hi, JC; thanks for moving debate to this Talk page in regards to whether or not any non-North American territories which are associated with North American sovereign countries should appear on this template. The reason I was respectfully seeing things differently (i.e., feeling that the non-NoAm territories should indeed appear) is due to what I feel is the encyclopedic usefulness of including them. In essence, such territories are, indeed, not geographically (or entirely geographically) within North America, but their association with North America made "easy access" to them (via this template) a "good thing" to have in my humble opinion. Also, I feel that a rough consensus has been established by allowing (for a decent amount of time) such territories to appear on the template in question.

Despite my good-faith disagreement with you, I did not want to revert again at the time I write this due to my dislike of "edit wars" and wanting to be mindful of the three-times-reverting rule. However, let me offer this productive approach: perhaps you or others have a "third way" in which this problem could be approached. I look forward to any input that you or others may have in that regard. —Best regards, Catdude (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What about a third group where all the non-NA may be included, but the only problem should be that just the US has territories in Oceania or elsewhere, and that my objection, its appears to be just a "one nation" issue rather than a "North American" issue, however a third group can be added to include the nonNA territories. JC 20:40 18 July 2008 (PST

That's an interesting approach, JC; would you be game to creating an "example template" as to how that would look? —Best regards, Catdude (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility improvement

{{editprotected}} I discovered a minor accessibility problem with this template when auditing the Castle article, a Featured Article candidate. For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, please mark the image used in this template with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. You can use this simple sandbox edit. This has already been done in Template:South America topic and should be done in other similar templates. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the image is "purely decorative" as it helps identify the continent in question. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a purely decorative image in the sense defined by the W3C. The question is not whether the image identifies the continent (clearly it does): the question is whether it provides additional useful information that should be presented to a visually impaired reader in addition to the text that's already presented. For example, "{{flag|France}}" generates both an image and text "France", and in the contexts where "{{flag|France}}" is used (an article about Olympics winners, say), the flag provides zero useful info in addition to what the text "France" already provides, so the image is purely decorative and should not be announced to a visually impaired reader. The situation here is similar. Eubulides (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is public domain, so this looks like a good change (though I would like a clearer consensus before making it myself). As an aside - I assume that it is not possible from this end to have a null alt= parameter override a screenreader reading out the link? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. As for the aside: it's hardwired into screen readers' DNA to announce links, and we can't suppress this with a null |alt=. Eubulides (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done This looks settled, as it has attracted no further attention. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink

I know I'm being very pedantic here, but can somebody with access change the wikilink on "other territories" to Sovereign territory. This would fix technicality problems with the French overseas departments on that list, and since there aren't any territories in the subdivisional sense as the link implies (e.g. the Yukon), it's a more appropriate link. Night w (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Neth. Antills. in SA?

I have never seen the Netherlands Antilles ever shown as apart of South America - the page linked to certainly don't represent this view point. Can anyone show me where this might be, otherwise we should remove the use of a footnote in the template. Outback the koala (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Remove the above footnote number in the template on the grounds above, namely that what it links to has no mention of this, I have sure never heard of this, Netherlands Antilles says nothing about this. It is clearly and widely known to be in the Caribbean, vis-à-vis it is apart of North America. I really don't think there is a dispute over this. Also it is afixed to Aruba, which is similarly ridiculous. Outback the koala (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've unprotected the template; feel free to make this change yourself. Note that the page linked from the footnote, list of countries spanning more than one continent, also makes this claim, so it'd be a good idea to adjust that too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have placed {cn} tags on that page and will check in on that later. Thank You, although I strongly recommend keeping this page protected, due to large number of articles it affects- at the very least semi protect! Outback the koala (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you reverted the template and stated in the edit summary "per talk". The issue is still in discussion and a talk between 2 parties is not a consensus. Some island of the caribbean are sometimes linked to SA. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 09:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit I reverted was because it had broken the template appearance. As for the islands, I still have yet to proof that these 2 islands are so thought of. Outback the koala (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles

The Netherlands Antilles have been dissolved now, so Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Sint Maarten should be listed here separately, like is the case on Template:Americas topic. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I agree (and also didn't manage because of the red lock...). To specify a bit: Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius, and Sint Maarten should al be in the "dependencies" category and Netherlands Antilles should be removed. Bonaire and Curaçao can share the superscript note already in place at Aruba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L.tak (talk • contribs)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As two of the territories that were within the former Netherlands Antilles - namely Bonaire and Curaçao - are just off the South American coast, they should appear in the template with a superscript 1 (in a similar way to Aruba and Trinidad and Tobago). Would an administrator please make this minor, but correct, edit. Thanks. Davshul (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look in the section above, I dispute that. Outback the koala (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

If your view were to be accepted, then the superscript 1 will need to be removed from Aruba (and probably from Trinidad and Tabago) and all four territories will need to be removed from Template:South America topic, where they currently appear. The edit requested by me (and by User L.tak above) is fully justifyable on a geographical basis and needs to be made for the sake of consistency. Davshul (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for topic templates

A centralised proposal regarding the use of superscript notes in navigation boxes is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. The disussion will affect this template. Nightw 12:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

France

France should be added because of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which are unambiguously in North America.

93.96.6.88 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

As France and the Netherlands now have integral territories in North America, they should be listed in the sovereign states section. However, they are predominantly not North American, so they should probably not be wikilinked here due to it being a topic template. A solution is to just link to the integral parts. Proposed code:

Netherlands <small>([[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Bonaire{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Bonaire]]{{·w}} [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Saba{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Saba]]{{·w}} [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Saint Eustatius {{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Saint Eustatius ]])</small>{{·w}}
France <small>([[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Guadeloupe{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Guadeloupe]]{{·w}} [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Martinique{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Martinique]])</small>{{·w}}

Resulting in:

Netherlands (Bonaire · Saba · Saint Eustatius) · France (Guadeloupe · Martinique) ·

In addition, territories should probably not be wikilinked, as it goes to a specific definition of territory not covered in this template. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on hold pending discussion on another page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

where? which page? Outback the koala (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

None yet, will make a general query at WIkipedia:WikiProject Geography per suggestion as Template talk:Oceania topic Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Navassa island and the image

Navassa island is uninhabited, and thus the articles that can be written on it are limited. Uninhabited territories are not included on any other topic templates, and Navassa island is not on the North American topic template. It should be removed. In addition, the map used here serves no real purpose (this is not a list of countries), and no other topic template has such a map. For consistency it should also be removed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

picture of North America

Other continental templates don't have pictures of the continents. I think this should be removed too. Alinor (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture of North America

Other continental templates don't have pictures of the continents. I think this should be removed too. Alinor (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from BigD527, 13 April 2011

Can this entire template (Patent infringement in North America) be deleted? It contains FORTY-TWO red links and only ONE active link. There clearly isn't a purpose being served by "Patent infringement in North America" if it's really only covering one country in North America. It seems totally wasteful to have this template.

BigD527 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This template is flexible, and can serve many purposes and link to different articles. The patent template was created by altering how this template appears on that page. Just delete the template from the pages it is used in this way. Regards, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 190.7.195.68, 24 May 2011

North America

The request is in regards to the addition of Costa RIca to the North American hemisphere, where this is completely incorrect. We costarricans are Central Americans, not north americans. it is very offensive to call us northerns, when we have made so much along the path to prove different.

A correction should be engaged, to keep a respectful sight of our people. 190.7.195.68 (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Central America is part of the continent of North America, so I don't think the template is incorrect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit

Remove the icon per WP:MOSICON Gnevin (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Which part of that guideline relates to the icon on this template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Styath, 18 June 2011

The English name of the Dutch island Sint Eustatius is actually "Saint Eustatius". According to admin The Tom ISO has favoured for "Saint" over "Sint" in English usage and he therefore changed the article's name. Could the island's name in this template be changed accordingly to improve consistency? (Most of the articles linked to by this template have already undergone a name change.) Styath (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit: I withdraw the request per ISO's correction (see [1]) Styath (talk) 18:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Map

Can the map on this template be removed? None of the other topic templates have maps, and as this is a versatile navigation template the map may often be fairly irrelevant to the subject of the links. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Ucucha 23:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: October 4, 2011

The current temaplte uses the term Rail transport in Jamaica, which itself is a redirect to the actual article at Railways of Jamaica. Can someone please change the template so that it goes directly to the article, and not the redirect? Thank You! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I moved the article Railways of Jamaica to Rail transport in Jamaica, for consistency with other similar articles. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Territory wikilink

Remove the wikilink to Territory (administrative division). That is not the use of the word territory there, and may confuse readers. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed, and I went ahead and removed the others as well because they are not really relevant or useful. Please let me know if you disagree and I'll revert. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

It would be good to add on this template Îles des Saintes between Guadeloupe and Martinique. Because it would be more easy for the reader to find and consult the history or the geography of these islands.--Moowgly (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to this request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

As Moowgly well knows, there's much opposition to this request. Moowgly is making a campaign of separating Iles des Saintes and a couple of other islands from Guadeloupe, despite the fact they are part of Guadeloupe. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Request declined for now, pending consensus. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I just wanna remember to Chipmunkdavis, that Guadeloupe and Martinique are truly part of France and the topic didn't write France but Guadeloupe and martinique. Unfortunatly Guadeloupe and Martinique are in "Dependent territories and other" part. Les Saintes, is a dependency of Guadeloupe wich is a dependency of France and can be include inside this part of the topic thanks to the term "other". And i will justify that it's also because the history of les Saintes is not history of Guadeloupe and is very different of it. And i will explain to Chipmunkdavis that Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin even if they are Overseas collectivity now, and are not included into the General council and regional council of Guadeloupe anymore, are considered always like part of Guadeloupe. The prefect of St-barts and St-martin is dependent of Prefect of Guadeloupe, who gouvernate Guadeloupe St-Barts and St-Martin. The funds of state and french state lies these islands to Guadeloupe too. And i will tell you that i know les Saintes, Marie-Galante, and la Désirade are included into Guadeloupe Department but they are not Guadeloupe but dependencies. Open every books of history and administration of Guadeloupe and you will see every time the word Guadeloupe and dependencies. Chipmunkdavis must learn the difference between an administrative status and a geographical entity. Guadeloupe is not an archipelago, otherwise France is an archipelago, Saint-Martin collectivity with the island of tintamarre and Pinel is an archipelago. Saint-Barthélemy is an island and an archipelago for its administrative status including Fourchue island, Terre-de-Haut commune is an archipelago and Terre-de-Haut Island an island also. it's absurd. We can not qualify of archipelago (geographic term) an administrative organisation. it is nonsence. None archipelago in the world have a name in the singular but a name in the plurial ex: Antilles, Philippines, (Poly)nesia (poly=grec=plural), seychelles, Bahamas, Les Saintes, Grenadines, Canaries, Açores, Bermudas,..... Guadeloupe is an island with dependencies not an archipelago . France state never qualifies Guadeloupe as an archipelago but an island and dependencies. So think of it --Moowgly (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The term dependencies as used by many Caribbean territories is not the same as Dependent territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You are also doing this at Template:Countries and territories of the Caribbean and Template:Countries of North America‎. These are just part of Guadeloupe. If we add these we also have to add Antigua and Barbuda (Barbuda). Wouldn't that be excessive? Rennell435 (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

When this template is called by a "Football in ..." article, the entry for the United States links to a disambiguation page: Football in the United States. Instead it should link to Soccer in the United States. (Every other link on the template relates to this sort of football.) Bazonka (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's possible with this generalised template. If this template was called "Soccer in..." then all the links would work (through lots of redirect admittedly). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Football in the United States is listed at WP:DPL, so it should really be addressed. But yes, I knew this wouldn't be an easy one, but perhaps some clever coder can add something into the template to address this peculiarity. Of course it would be much easier if the Yanks just started calling the sport by its proper name :) Bazonka (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should create Template:Football in North America, subst this template, and alter. TimBentley (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed all "Football in ..." links to this template to "Association football in ...". All links now work, although some of them only via redirects. Bazonka (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Mark {{edit protected}} done, Bazonka solved the problem in another (better) way. Anomie⚔ 19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2012 (Rail Transport/Barbados)

Suggestion: On the Rail Transport in North America template, someone may want to wikilink Barbados to Transport_in_Barbados#Railway. Textorus (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Textorus (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what the "Rail Transport in North America template" is, but it doesn't appear to be this template. {{Transport in North America}}, the closest match I found, does not have a railway-specific section. Please clarify the request. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - United States

There is actually an article that encompasses Christmas tree production in the United States, it should probably be titled that but it is titled Christmas tree cultivation in the United States. It should be added to the template. I doubt a lot of these places produce too many Christmas trees. IvoShandor (talk) 08:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This request has to do with the "Christmas tree production in North America" Template. IvoShandor (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind about this. I am building a new, more appropriate article, that will automatically link. IvoShandor (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Had this still been "open", I would have pointed out that the way to fix it would have been to create a redirect from Christmas tree production in the United States to Christmas tree cultivation in the United States. Do consider whether it would be better to expand the existing article (and create the redirect) or have separate articles for production and cultivation; I personally am unsure on that issue. Anomie⚔ 14:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I am going to merge what content I can to the production article and drop anything else in the main Christmas tree cultivation article. I didn't actually create the U.S. cultivation article, but i think it's my fault originally for created a poorly framed article on a related topic in the past. Thanks.IvoShandor (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 17 July 2013

There is a version in the sandbox that will update the "state" parameter to match that in the directions at Template:Navbox#Setup parameters. Please update this navbox, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 January 2014

Please replace the line

|group2 = {{#if:{{{countries_only|}}} | |Dependencies and<br>other territories}}

with

|group2 = {{#if:{{{countries_only|}}} | |{{longitem|Dependencies and<br/>other territories}}}}

per Template:Americas topic and other similar templates (in Category:Configurable area-topic templates).

Thank you, 213.246.117.230 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 10:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 May 2014

There is no article named "Cabinet of Greenland". The proper article to replace said name is "Naalakkersuisut" Kristoffer "Wiki" Winkler (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Where do you see Cabinet of Greenland and where do you want it replaced with Naalakkersuisut? Please remember this continent-topic template is transcluded on multiple navigational templates. If there is a technical problem with a specific transclusion (e.g., {{Topic of North America}}), it cannot be corrected here. See the template's documentation for help with fixing a specific transclusion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 13:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A simple solution for problems like this is creating a redirect from Cabinet of Greenland to Naalakkersuisut, which I've just done. As T13 says, there's nothing that can be done at this template page. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

This template is supposed to be about ski resorts, but instead it has a bunch of countries and territories with red links. It needs some fixes but is currently protected. I would request that either (i) it be fixed or (ii) it be unprotected so that the Wikipedia community can start to fix it. As it stands it looks screwy and gives Wikipedia a amateurish look. See its use here (bottom of page): List of ski areas and resorts in the United States

Thanks.Mdukas (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC) Mdukas (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Mdukas: Not done: Please see the "Attention" box at the top of this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This template is not supposed to be about ski resorts specifically; it is a general template that can be used in articles on many different topics. For the linked article, where pages for only two of the navbox's entries exist, I would suggest just removing the template, moving any non-red links to the "See also" section. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have done as you suggested and removed the template but added back the single non-red link to the See Also section. Issue resolved, thanks for the guidance. Mdukas (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

Add List of California wildfires be placed next to US in brackets. Example: (California). Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: You might have requested this on the wrong template. This template is generally used for broad topics that are country-level. California is too specific, and not meant for a template like this. Otherwise, if I'm misunderstanding, you should give a syntax usage of how possibly List of California wildfires should be linked from this template You can try {{North America topic|List of | wildfires}}, but that gets you country-level wildfires. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the info and reply, ill take a look at it and see if another way of linking is possible. Cheers - Kyle1278 (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

You could use Template:United States topic for a state-level list, though that would have a lot of redlinks:

SiBr₄ (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 October 2016

The "Life imprisonment in North America" links section at the bottom is full of dead links. Only Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America have working links.

Bosticko (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to remove the template from the article if you don't think it is useful. The links are created automatically and there is nothing that needs to change in the template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:14, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Football in the United States and Football in Canada

Hello there - The North America topic template is being used for Football in the various countries - intended to mean Association football, aka Soccer. Can the template be adjusted so that where it links to "Football in Canada" it links instead to Soccer in Canada, and similarly instead of linking to the disambiguation page Football in the United States it points to Soccer in the United States? Thanks in advance, PKT(alk) 20:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello? Is this thing on? Is anybody there? ....PKT(alk) 13:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 October 2018

Add an * Iceland link following Honduras. Iceland is a Transcontinental country, owing to the fact that 50% of its land area and ≥33% of its population - including the capital Reykjavik - lie in North America. Glide08 (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Iceland is generally considered within Europe, and so for navigation purposes (but perhaps not geographic/geologic purposes) makes sense where it is in {{Europe topic}} and not in North America topic Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 January 2019

Can you please add the following article to the list of "Dependencies and other territories" in this template?

Vehicle registration plates of the Canal Zone

This article did not exist until today, and consequently was not included in this list prior to it being locked for editing. Please add this so that the name only appears as "Canal Zone". The term "Panama Canal Zone" is incorrect, and it should not be used. This is because the license plates in this article are those issued by the territorial government of the Canal Zone from 1910 - 1979, controlled by the U.S. government, and not the country of Panama. Additionally, the word "Panama" never appears on the plates. Thank you! Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the template I am referring to.

Zcarstvnz (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Please discuss these two things first: 1. changing Panama Canal Zone to Canal Zone, and 2. adding the zone as an element of Template:North America topic. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95 Why are you requesting #1 in your comment? Panama Canal Zone does not appear in the template. Can you please strike through #1 to eliminate it from the requirement or further explain why it is needed? Thanks! Zcarstvnz (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

You are asking for "Canal Zone" to be added to the template, but the consensus at "Panama Canal Zone" is to lead with the word "Panama". If you are OK with adding "Panama Canal Zone" to {{North America topic}}, I am happy to do that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2019

Please add the portal Caribbean portal to this template, maybe in the section listing portals for island nations, or island territories. many that don't have their own portal are covered by that portal. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Sm8900 (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sm8900, This template is not concerned solely with portals. Adding a portal which is relevant to only 13 of the 23 nations is not appropriate. I had a look at your contributions around the time you submitted this request and still couldn't see what you had in mind. Cabayi (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)