Misplaced Pages

Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wissahickon Creek (talk | contribs) at 13:13, 1 November 2006 (→Recent changes: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:13, 1 November 2006 by Wissahickon Creek (talk | contribs) (→Recent changes: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives: 1

Sealand

Shouldn't Sealand be included as an unrecognised territory? There's no debate about it being geographically in Europe, as it's off the coast of England, and it has declared independence from the UK.--GingerM 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

No, because no other encyclopedia even mentions Sealand. Joke states are unencyclopedic. Telex 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
But if you look at this article here it says "...the Government and courts finally admitted that the tower, built to help to defend Britain from invasion in the 1940s, is outside British national territory and not part of the United Kingdom." So if the government admits it isn't part of the UK, then I'd class it as unrecognised terrority, as no country has officially recognised it but the UK has admitted they don't control it.--GingerM 19:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Not quite. See this article according to which in 1987 the UK extended its territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles from the coast, so the UK's territorial waters now do include Sealand (so they do admit to control it). A specific quote is:
But John Gibson, an expert on sea law and sovereignty at Cardiff University, said the legitimacy of Sealand's claim depends on whether it was recognised as a nation before 1987.
He said because Sealand was man-made there was little chance that it would be recognised as a nation. "I don't think structures of that kind count as territory," he said.
If you read the rest of the article, it appears that only Mr Bates himself disputed this and claims is was recognised as a nation. Of course, he has failed to substansiate this claim, so it remains an assertion until proven. Moreover, my concern that this man made platform is not even mentioned in any other encyclopedias, so I see no reason for Misplaced Pages to break with tradition has not been addressed. Telex 19:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Update proposal for subheadings and adding Åland

I propose to bring this template uptodate with terms used in List of countries. This would mean either adding a new line Special entities: Åland | Svalbard. Or alternatively changing Other territories: into Other territories and entities: and adding Åland. (NB. the above votes on Åland, etc. are no longer relevant as the word dependency is not used anymore) --Trainthh 23:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Kosovo

What about Kosovo?

It is not a full part of Serbia it is not recognized as an independent entity. --Goran.Smith2 09:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

territories and special entities

I do not think they (territories and special entities) belong to this template and instead to their own template. Else we will need to include every canadian province and us state on template:north america. Only sovern countries (weather its defacto (no international recognition) or not) --Cat out 03:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

support. I think list on this template or not should depert from
  1. they did proclamation of independence or not
  2. somone(might be UN) accept it or not
I think list only 1 and 2 is simple and understandable. Greenland did? I'm not sure. and where is Sealand? --Suisui 03:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Only countries claiming to be independent should be here. If the country has no international concensus for recognition (I think its safe to say UN), they should be presented as "unrecognised". A footnote for North Cyprus would be good practice (Turkey does recognise north and not the south cyprus)
I think sealand claims to be a country (unrecognised one for certain), so it should appear there. I'll add it if its not on the template after saving this.
--Cat out 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Sealand should not be featured, else we'd have to include about a hundred European micronations. —Nightstallion (?) 12:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
But none of those claim to be sovereign. Sealand does (yes they are a ridiclous entity and yes I wish a topedo accidentaly blew them up :P) --Cat out 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
This template is for countries, not only sovereign states. There's no reason to exclude those countries that are not sovereign states. — Instantnood 11:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a non-sovereign country, either they claim to be a country (defecto or not) or they don't belong here. In the US there are 50 Non-sovereign countries. Canada has 9 I believe. Les not forget mexico. We do not list all of them all. --Cat out 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Instantnood. --Göran Smith 21:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Non-sovereign territories are already covered in these templates by the respective countries exercising sovereignty over them. There is a reason why we therefore add Taiwan but exclude Tibet, we add the West Bank but exclude the Golan Heights, and so on. All four are under competing claims by various parties, but only the former in each case are under the control of a distinct party independent from the other vested parties.--Huaiwei 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is talking about Tibet or the Golan Heights here. Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Åland, the Faroe Islands, etc., are not Tibet or the Golan Heights. — Instantnood 19:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Nobody? I just did. And so did several editors above who say just about any other territory could be listed also. Editors who insist on adding some territories will have to justify the exclusion of others. I consider removing all of them as the best solution.--Huaiwei 08:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed them myself and will continue to do so. Either all territories (including entities like "Wales") are redundently listed, or none will be. Best solution is listing none. Create a seperate template for it. --Cat out 12:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Armenia

Armenian is clearly NOT in Europe, it is in Asia (the Middle East) and part of Asian culture because it's IN ASIA. Misplaced Pages should be a source of factual information not a place for wishfull thinking and geopolitical agendas Please remove Armenia and all non European nations from this area. Just because many Armenians don't like their Middle Eastern neighbors doesn't give them the right to re-draw the map. I am sorry some Armenians don't like being in Asia, but there are MANY Armenians who are proud of their true heritage and freely admit being and Asian nation. Don't let a few self-haters tarnish and distort the truth of Armenia's geographic location. --Calgvla 08:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Armenians want to be considered European. Many Western-European names, such as Robert, Ruchard, Karen, Pierre, Ronald, Harry, Edmond, very popular in Armenia. But having European name still does not make European.--Nixer 14:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This is very similar to the Turks. In their quest to distance themselves from their largely Islamic neighbours, they choose to downplay their long and obvious affinity with the Asian landmass, and emphasize purely on looking west. I faces issues in Airline destinations‎ for the same reason....pro-European activists both in the countries in question and amongst Europeans keen to see an expanded EU attempting to classify more and more of these countries under Europe at the expense of Asia.--Huaiwei 17:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Many Europeans don't consider Turkey to be culturally and historically European. Are they pro-Europe? — Instantnood 20:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
At whom is this irrelevant question directed at?--Huaiwei 08:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkey is geographicaly in Asia and has been considered European even in international treaties. As for Armenia and Cyprus, these are geographicaly in asia even though they are considered european in international treaties. So... I do not see a reason why either three cant belong here. In fact I do not see the point of this debate. --Cat out 12:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Turkey should be in "countries of europe" template indeed. Because she really has soil in Europe continent. But i dont think she's european in politics. Some sick EU candidateship meetings (which are only a game for some parties to get higher votes from turkish immigrants in elections) doesnt approve this. CONCLUSION: Europe is a continent that Turkey is in. Europe is an entity where Turkey is not in (an entity which she must run away with no looking at back) --JohnEmerald 16:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Fascinating argument. However, this is a debate that's been going on since the Middle Ages and earlier. Different people come to different conclusions using different criteria. For Misplaced Pages's purposes, it is convenient to Group Turkey, Cyprus, etc with Europe. It isn't a matter of Truth™ or something like that, just an editorial convenience. The fact is that there is no accepted Truth about where Europe ends and Asia begins. Did you know that the Western World thought it ended at Germany's eastern border before? Just one example of how relative, and how culturally-dependent one person's convictions about this geographically and politically ambiguous area is. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Abkhzia vs. Chechnya

Well, somebody rv ed me when I was trying to incude Ichkeria in the template. Ok, in Abkhazia, there is a de jure government, located in Kodori gorge and there is a de dacto Sokhumi based separatist govt. The same comparion would apply to Chechnya. If we delete Chechen Republic we should delete the Abkhzia separatist republic as well or vice versa if we wonna keep Chechenya we gotta keep Abkhazia too. Sosomk 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

we don't delete chechnya, we just don't include it. -- tasc deeds 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? What is the criteria? Can you explain in a civil manner. Sosomk 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not an unrecognized country. -- tasc deeds 23:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is ] ] Sosomk 23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Soso does make a valid point here. In my opinion though, all pseudo-states should be removed, this template should be about actual countries, not entities in the process of becoming countries (Montenegro was an unrecognized state shortly after the declaration of independence).--Tekleni 07:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So, how do you define which country is real and which is not? By the fact that it's not recognized by someone? -- tasc deeds 07:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
By its membership of the UN. Taiwan not a member, yet is recognized by 24 member states, and is classified as a so-called "unrecognized state" on Misplaced Pages. Israel OTOH is a member of the UN, yet is not recognized by 24 other member states. Why is Taiwan an "unrecognized state" and Israel isn't? By the number of states recognizing them? Where do you draw the line?--Tekleni 07:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
don't really understand what taiwan and israel has to do with it. From wp pov they both Partially unrecognized states. anyway we certainly don't draw the line across neither recognized, nor un member, nor controlling any territory entities. -- tasc deeds 07:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well then why not include Sealand (see #Sealand)? De facto control is subjective. Do you think that any of these "puppet statelets" could survive on their own without some backing (whether it's Turkey backing the TRNC or Russia backing South Ossetia). Believe me, they'd starve; these are cases of foreign military occupation masquerading as states. You think the South Ossetian separatist authorities control its territory? Wrong, Russia controls its territory.--Tekleni 07:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Than we probably should also exclude Georgia as it doesn't control territory it claims? -- tasc deeds 07:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This is where the UN membership and recognition come into play. Serbia doesn't control all the territory it claims either. Why not include Kosovo as well?--Tekleni 07:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Why not. if majority editors agrees. -- tasc deeds 07:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should at try to be internally consistent with List of countries. My preference would be to exclude any entity that has no diplomatic relations with other countries, but including those (and only those) listed in List of countries seems reasonable. --Polaron | Talk 13:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this comment is helpful, but I parcipated very briefly in a discussion on another talk page related to the unrecognized country issue. ne of the other posters over there pointed out that these places are all listed in Misplaced Pages already. They are on: List of countries as unrecognized countries. They are also on List of sovereign states. Of course also on List of unrecognized countries which is what we link to. There has already been extensively discussion on those Talk pages and Misplaced Pages-wide editor consensus was reached. It is always best to seek consistency on the whole encyclopedia. - Pernambuco 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

removal

I removed all the pseudo-states. --Wissahickon Creek 20:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

we noticed. -- tasc deeds 20:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Put TRNC back. Have you ever been there? They have their own government and they are all turkish; totally seperated from Greek Cyprus. Abkhzia & Chechnya may not be recognized by anyone but TRNC is recognized by an important country of the region: Turkey. EU cannot recognize it because Greece doent want them to do so. --JohnEmerald 16:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
There's no such thing as "Greek Cyprus", there's only the Republic of Cyprus - a multiethnic state, recognized by everyone save Turkey, with two official languages: Greek and Turkish. Since the Turkish invasion and the setting up of the puppet regime in the north, propaganda is emanating from Turkish affiliated publications that the north is Turkish and the "southern state" is Greek. The UN still considers the "TRNC" legally invalid in its resolutions - Greece has nothing to do with this.--Tekleni 07:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Try to make the encyclopedia consistent. In the current case, this means that the stable version should be kept and not reverted. It has been in place and in use for a long long time. Misplaced Pages has some fairly serious guidelines about changes templates. It should be done with care. - Pernambuco 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
TRNC is not a puppet country. 2 years ago when Cyprus was accepted in EU, there was a referandum in which Turkish cypriots of TRNC voted in the favor of merging of two regions. But Greek side voted NO: they didn't want to be merged with turkish folk. Turkey's government and people were very dissappointed because of the gratitude of TRNC folk; TRNC just wanted to be no more TRNC and wanted to be prosperous EU citizens: they were rejected. They just neverminded the blood flown 30 years ago; just didnt remembered the minor genocide against their grandparents by Greek army 30 years ago. So is there really a government or a puppet one. Decision is yours --JohnEmerald 17:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. The Annan Plan for Cyprus was rejected by GCs because of its unfair treatment of the Greek community (the whole world knows that GCs and TCs alike favor reunification - the problem is on what terms). Turks make up an impressive 18% of the total population of Cyprus and thus are an ethnic minority (the puppet regime already claims much more territory than that). Claims for equal representation in the administration (50/50) are absolutely ludicrous. State officials should be democratically elected, and all citizens who have reached the age of majority should be eligible to stand. Also, that plan made provisions for the Turkish occupation force to remain on the island, and you're wondering why they opposed it and why the Turks accepted it?! Finally, as far as this alleged "genocide" is concerned, I'll just say this: it should be entered in the Guinness World Records as the only "genocide" in world history where the "perpetrators" suffered more dead than the "victims" (makes you wonder who committed genocide on whom). --Tekleni 17:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
None of this matters. Regardless of what you agree on, or don't agree on, this is not the place. This is only a template. It can take information from other lists. For consistency, it should include what is on these lists and it should exclude what is not on these lists. As simple as that. If anyone has a problem with the inclusion of a certain state or territorial entity, then go to List of countries and click "Discussion" and bring up the issue there. Not here. - Pernambuco 23:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't induce the reader in error..that article states something like: list of countries recognized and not recognized. You want to push here a POV even if this template does not specifically refers to unrecognized countries from Europe. You should create another template of unrecognized european states.--Wissahickon Creek 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not a POV-pushing issue. We just have to be consistent with List of Countries and with List of sovereign states. The editors over there have already done all the work. When they add a new entity, so do we. When they remove one, so do we. Simple as that. - Pernambuco 22:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Republic of"

Is listing the Republic of Ireland as "Ireland" and the Republic of Macedonia as "Republic of Macedonia" inconsistent...?   Unsure, David Kernow (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The state's official name is Ireland. does it help? -- tasc deeds 07:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So long, I guess, as the Republic of Macedonia's official name is "Republic of Macedonia"... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it? -- tasc deeds 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of Irelands's official name is actually The Republic of Ireland, as the article says. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
does it? The state's official name is Ireland -- tasc deeds 23:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. The lead of the article is confusing unless closely read. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you must write "Kingdom of Spain","Kingdom of Denmark", "Federal republic of Germany" etc. instead of short names.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnEmerald (talk • contribs)
I'm confused. What are you disagreeing with? I mistread the Republic of Ireland article, that's all. I've withdrawn my point because I was wrong. — Saxifrage ✎ 02:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

France

I see that Spain and Portugal have notes that they are partly outside of Europe, presumably due to their integral overseas territories. I note too that Greenland (part of Denmark) is noted separately. However, I don't see any mention of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon or other integral-to-France overseas territories, and France doesn't have a note like Portugal or Spain. Should this be fixed, or is it not broken somehow that I'm not seeing? — Saxifrage ✎ 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like something that may need addressing...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and put the footnote on France. If I'm premature and there's good reason not to, people are free to revert and let me know why. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This and similar templates' names

Does anyone else feel the name "Europe" is insufficiently descriptive for this template (or "Asia" for {{Asia}}, "Africa" for {{Africa}}, etc)...?  When seen within code, it doesn't indicate what information about Europe is that the template contains.

Hence I suggest this and similar templates' names are prefixed "Countries of". This is also the title used within the template itself. {{Countries of Europe}}, {{Countries of Asia}} etc are far more helpful names. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • oppose useless change, required a lot of work. why do you need to care about code at all? can't you use preview? is there any new countries to care about code? I think you're trying to multiply entities without need. -- tasc deeds 14:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Not a lot of work is required: bots, redirects, AWB, ...
  2. I care about code because I'm thinking of people who aren't necessarily computer experts or don't recall the contents of every template they see.
  3. I'm also imagining the inconvenience of resorting to a preview when a couple of words prefixed to a name could suffice.
  4. How is the appearance or demise of countries relevant to the concerns I've outlined...?
Regards, David Kernow (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Not amount of work is important, but the fact that it's useless. Those who don't know what template is about can press preview button, but this template does not require any editing! yeah, it's a good idea to keep ip vandals out. What you talking about? what appearance/demise? Occam's razor! just find yourself a better thing to do. -- tasc deeds 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't understand how any of the above addresses the concerns I've raised. Hopefully it might be more meaningful to anyone else reading this thread. Thanks anyway for trying to share your opinion. Regards, David (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be a concern. just waste of time on talk pages. -- tasc deeds 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to make sure I'm not misuderstanding you: Does your response immediately above mean you regard anything you don't think is a concern to be a waste of time...?  David (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Templates get renamed all the time and it's not a lot of work. Neither is using a more descriptive name useless. Besides, the old name will continue to work just fine until all uses are replaced. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
well it's not needed in the first place! -- tasc deeds 15:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is your opinion, tasc. Now, how do you accommodate those of your fellow contributors...?  David Kernow (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
So far i see only your opinion, and none of my fellow contributors. -- tasc deeds 22:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I am right here.
If your reason to not do it is "it's too hard", you're very welcome to get out of the way and let someone else do the work. That you don't think it's needed isn't reason to not do it. You must give a reason to not do it in order to have a position worth considering. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
If your reason to do it is "it's not too hard", you're very welcome to get out of the way and let someone else don't do the work. That you do think it's needed isn't reason to do it. You must give a reason to do it in order to have a position worth considering. -- tasc deeds 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
What happens if it (or they) are reason/s you don't like, tasc?  Ignore?  Revert?  David Kernow (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Reasons have been given; and thank-you, I am willing to get out of the way and let someone else don't do the work, which is the definition of "doing it myself". Now, I realise that that's not what you're saying, but please be mature about this—copycatting me isn't very constructive. Now, do you have a reason for opposing this change on its merits instead? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not needed. Didn't I articulate it above? -- tasc deeds 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not good enough. Strictly-speaking, Misplaced Pages is "not needed", but here it is. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
So, what is your reasons? -- tasc deeds 00:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indentation)
Template names that describe the template is a good thing. There's no reason not to, and a number of people seem to prefer the "Countries of X" naming scheme. That's enough reason to do it. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What you trying to convince me? that devil always has work for idle hands to do? of course, there is always something to change, and there is always disputes to solve. just imagine how many new claims for removal of non-sovereign countries will appear after change of the template's name. -- tasc deeds 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there'd be a significant increase in such claims; neither, I suspect, would most editors. My experience here suggests that anyone determined to make such changes won't be dissuaded by the name of the template/article/etc. But what concerns me more is that your objection doesn't assume good faith. David Kernow (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as per David Kernow. I think the template should be renamed, and so should the templates for other continents. At the moment, it has potential to be confused with {{Europefooter}}. I understand there are a lot of pages transcluding it but as long as a bot/AWB can do it, it can be done easily. The old name would redirect to the new name whilst the country pages referencing it are updated so it will always be working properly. There shouldn't be too much visual impact since this kind of issue only affects the internal wiki-code. Tra (Talk) 23:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It will be than confused with {{EU countries}} -- tasc deeds 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
By whom can be they confused? they are not to be used in the new articles! -- tasc deeds 23:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to read WP:OWN before you violate it. This isn't your page, it's the project's. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that supposed to be an answer? -- tasc deeds 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. You didn't ask me the question and I didn't answer it. I am asking you to not try to control this page as if you owned it. Policy forbids it. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I did ask you question, but you aparently prefer to ignore it. well, that's your right. -- tasc deeds 00:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not aware of this question you asked of me right here. If you mean you asked me a question elsewhere in this page, then please assume I will answer it there. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Europe and the EU are, and have often been, confused with each other. The issue does not just apply to this template. As for who would get confused, that would be anyone who is writing an article and wants a list of countries in Europe at the bottom, or is looking to see which template refers to the list of countries, or who is trying to find the template to edit the list of countries etc. Tra (Talk) 00:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue does not just apply to this template. That's an interesting observation. why is that? You cannot just write an article and want template. It's a navigational template. It should be included in only in a limited number of relevant articles! not just in any article editor want it to be included. And guess what? all such articles have been written, and template - included! no need to write any more article! no need to broke previous convention on template name. No need to start new disputes regarding inclusion other terriotories or unrecognized states in contries of x template. -- tasc deeds 07:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Names are consistent! Asia, Europe, Africa... -- tasc deeds 00:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per tjstrf --Wissahickon Creek 12:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support In my opinion, since the navigational box is titled Countries of Europe, it is logical that the template should be similarly named. If I were to write an article about a fictional European country and decided to put in the Europe Template on a whim, I might expect to get some general statistics on Europe, not a list of countries in it. As for the issue of extra workload, the template itself gives us a list of the main articles that contain the template, and there are plenty of other ways of quickly determining what pages contain the template (for example, placing a temporary category on the Template page, giving us a page called Pages containing the Europe Template).Randomwellwisher 16:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. My reasoning is above. I've had enough of belligerence. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. if there is consensus on the template naming issue. - Pernambuco 01:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Other consensus

If there's a consensus to accept template names that are a little more informative, is there also a consensus for the following general features:

  1. The use of  s to anticipate and manage linewrapping (i.e. so that lines don't begin with divider/separator characters (e.g. middots) and names consisting of two or more words are either not split or are split meaningfully across lines);
  2. Either the alignment or the removal of icon-images (e.g. the flags currently in {{Turkic-speaking}} and similar templates) that otherwise, I suggest, detract from templates' appearance;
  3. An acceptance of the middot character (·), perhaps in bold (·), as a general divider/separator character, especially as it seems less obstrusive than the bullet (•) or vertical-line (|) characters (both, I suggest, drawing too much attention away from templates' text as they are either too prominent (bullet) or of similar height/proportions as the text (vertical-line)).

Thanks for your thoughts, David Kernow (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Use "Continent in topic" templates?

Further to the above, perhaps these templates (with no topic instantiated) may be used instead...?  (See Misplaced Pages:Template:Continent in topic guidelines)  David Kernow (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nations outside Europe

Nations that are entirely in another location outside of Europe, should not be included--Caligvla 16:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There are good reasons for each of the countries and territories marked with a "". Could you be more specific in your objection? — Saxifrage ✎ 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrecognized...

I apologize in advance if I am being too bold but I changed the word "states" to "countries" in the definition of of "unrecognised countries". I did this because of the name of the article which the text wikilinks to: See 'List of unrecognized countries'.
Now there is consistency. The term which is used there is now the term which is used here. "Unrecognized countries" means the same thing. If I did something wrong, just revert me and no offense. - Pernambuco 01:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert.--Wissahickon Creek 07:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain better, so we can understand your motivation? I have a problem with this. If you just reverted my single word, that is OK. But you did not merely revert me. You deleted the whole entry, for all of these entities. You should know that this box is currently in use in some of the article pages for these places, i.e.. When you make drastic changes to a template like that, it affects all of Misplaced Pages in unintended ways. - Pernambuco 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain your edits? Why do you keep adding some unrecognized countries? --162.114.211.139 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Unacceptable blind reverts by Polaron=?Pernambuco=?.--162.114.211.139 19:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting them? The consensus in List of countries is to include them since they are de facto independent. --Polaron | Talk 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. This is only a template. We can not make these decisions. There has been extensive discussion already on the appropropriate Talk pages of these lists. We are merely following their consensus, for consistency. If a new country appears tomorrow on that list, we will add it here. If a country merges with another one tomorrow, and it disappears from their list, we will remove it from our template as well. Consistency, OK. This is not a one-man show. It is an encyclopedia. Respect the work of others and do not reinvent the wheel. - Pernambuco 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. --Wissahickon Creek 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't agree with what, specifically? — Saxifrage ✎ 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
if this user does not want to defend his argument then just ignore him. He uses words like "POV pushing" against those of us who think that his reverts were irresponsible. But: We must merely follow the standards that are already developed Misplaced Pages-wide and stable version practises. - Pernambuco 22:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Straightforward solution...?

Suggest that if this template becomes {{Countries of Europe}},

  1. "Countries" is clearly defined as meaning those states recognized by the UN;
  2. A link to European territories not recognized by the United Nations or the like appears at the bottom.

Attempts to include territories/states/whatever not recognized by the UN could then be reverted on sight. I'm not sure if anything could be more effective/straightforward for this or the other continental navigation templates...  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I have moved this article to reflect POV pushing of unrecognized countries. Wissahickon Creek 20:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Respectfully, this is a template, not an article. It is highly inappropriate to name it anything except something simple and useful. It is a template and for infrastructural use. The current title (Template:Europe (recognized, dependent and unrecognized countries)) is nigh on useless for inclusions. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If, then, there's no objection in the next day or so, I'll:

  1. Move this template (and its siblings) to the specific "Countries of..." format and state the specific criterion that countries appearing in these templates are countries recognized by the UN;
  2. Replace any/all non-UN recognized territories etc with a single link to an/the appropriate "(List of) unrecognized territories..." article;
  3. If needs be, protect the resulting {{Countries of X}} templates.

Hope that's okay. David Kernow (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good god people. I moved this back to Template:Europe because "recognized, dependent and unrecognized countries" is already implied by the fact that those countries are considered to be part of Europe by someone. Whatever else you move it to, keep it simple please. pschemp | talk 22:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed all the unrecognized states by UN as per talk page and as per User:David Kernow --Wissahickon Creek 06:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Doing that "per David Kernow" would also include adding a link at the bottom to a "List of" article on the unrecognised states/countries/whatever per his suggestion. I found List of unrecognized countries, but it is too broad. What would you suggest be best to link? — Saxifrage ✎ 06:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I was going to look into this myself sometime later today, hopefully, but if anything appropriate found already, great!  I'm imagining a note at the bottom of the template along the lines of "For dependent and other territories in or associated with Europe, see ArticleName."  So, assuming noone makes a substantive objection to the above in the next few hours, renaming the template Countries of Europe would entail replacing the current "Other territories entities " with this note. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Is the plan only to list sovereign countries or would you include dependent territories listed as countries by the UN? We should make sure that this is also used for templates for the other continents to have internal consistency within the enyclopedia. --Polaron | Talk 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The plan is to list only recognized countries by UN, I would not include list of all dependent territories. It's too much mixture here anyway, it's better this way without them.--Wissahickon Creek 13:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Even though yes, there are UN-recogniz/sed territories, I was thinking of the former, to try to reduce any temptation to add unrecogniz/sed territories. Do you think, though, this would be too restrictive...?  Thanks, David (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear David, I think you're right when you support the reducement of any temptation to add unrecognized territories. I don't think it's restrictive at all, additionally it can be made a new template Template:European territories not recognized by the United Nations to list of the unrecognized regions/territories. I support the change to have Template:Countries of Europe.--Wissahickon Creek 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My preference would be to include UN-recognized dependencies but if the consensus is to include recognized sovereign states only then I'll go with that. --Polaron | Talk 14:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, consensus is to have only recognized sovereign states only. However thank you Polaron for your work. Thank you. --Wissahickon Creek 14:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify: I'm referring to dependencies that are usually listed separately in the UN list of countries. They are not sovereign states but are recognized as countries by the UN. --Polaron | Talk 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't be so quick to announce what consensus is. You actually have to wait and see if other people are going to contribute to the discussion first.
For my part, I actually believe that it would be best to keep this template consistent with List of countries. The most straightforward way of doing this is to include them all in this one template. An alternative way to keep our templates consistent with that list, we could have one template per major division of the countries in List of countries for those in/claimed by Europe, which would give three templates: one Template:Sovereign states of Europe, one Template:Dependent territories of Europe, and one Template:Areas of special sovereignty of Europe. They would all have to refer to each other of course, to maintain full coverage. I don't think a simplified template that excludes significant political entities is best serving our readers. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no consensus. This is a template. The criteria for inclusion is already developed elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. The same with regards to naming criteria. If someone does not agree with a name, or with the presence of an entity, then discuss it there. The main list to use is List of countries. There is also a List of sovereign states. In both cases, the unrecognized countries are included. When they get removed there, we have to remove them here, too. How hard is that to understand? - Pernambuco 22:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It was discuss to remove all unrecognized territories from Europe. How can be a state sovereign state since it's not recognized by UN? --Wissahickon Creek 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Michael that is a good question indeed but this is the wrong place to ask it. Go to List of countries and discuss it there. Go to List of sovereign states and discuss it there, too. When you reach consensus, then they will remove the entities from their lists. When they do that, then we can remove them from our template. But while they are still part of the established Misplaced Pages lists for countries and for sovereign states, we are forced to take note of that. We are forced to make our template here comply with the rest of Misplaced Pages. This is called consistency. You can not change just one corner, and especially not on a template which is used on lots of pages, because that will have unforeseen consequences. Please do not continue to edit out this until you understand the importance of a stable version in templates and the importance of consistency with already-established lists. If you want to change these lists, just go there and tell the editors, but the place is not here for that discussion. - Pernambuco 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You avoided my question because you can't answer it. --Wissahickon Creek 06:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
WC, please refrain from making controversial edits without consensus first. Misplaced Pages is not about each editor stating their opinion by reverting. This applies to everyone as well. Khoikhoi 06:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I deliberately avoided Michael's (Wissahickon Creek's) question, but not because I can not answer it. As I stated, I avoided it because it is not up to me, him, or anyone else to have that discussion here, on this talk page. The proper place for such a disussion is here and here. To the extent that these two lists determine which entitites should be included and which entities should not, then we follow what has been decided. Consistency. Encyclopedia-wide standards. - Pernambuco 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I will answer for you since you avoided my question deliberately. Unrecognized territories serve as gateways for money laundering, afford ground for illegal privatization, property seizure, trafficking and all sorts of other ultra-profitable businesses for the bureaucratic capital. It appears that definitions of “legitimacy” are being used to justify the political situation in unrecognized republics. Recognition of the so-called unrecognized states is far off. The unrecognized territories, even with a presence of will of their authorities, are unable to provide on the own territory the rights of native population instead of the following factors:
  • - impossibility of the official commercial contacts taking compels regional business fully to go away to shade and to become the basis of criminalization of society;
  • - an unfavorable economic situation draws the exceptionally low level of life of population, that is a major negative factor;
  • - separatisits authorities spent major part of material resources on providing of foreign-policy status quo and maintenance of administrative vehicle, they can not put these resources to the fight against criminality;
  • - absence of legal financial resources provokes separatist authorities on participation in total contraband of goods, drugs, weapon, and people, as these are the most profitable types of international activity;
  • - unrecognized territories can not officially use the foreign and international aid;
  • - the indicated factors improve the concentration on separatist territories of criminal element from contiguous regions.
  • Thus, any unrecognized region automatically becomes a territory which is dangerous for the residence of native population. Thus important to understand that separatism is primary, but it is not the same or a product of a criminalization of society, as it sometimes the states try to represent. International association has no tools of influence on the unrecognized territories –they are not the subjects of international legal relationships and don’t carry any responsibility; their leaders, as a rule, do not accomplish the acts which international responsibility comes for; the population of these territories can not carry collective responsibility for support of illegal power as an international law in general does not contain the institute of collective responsibility or collective duties. Power solving of these problems is enough not simple – if on those territory is not accomplished the international crimes (genocide) the input of national and even international military powers can be acknowledged as violation of principle of peaceful permission of conflicts. Moreover, such conflict will be regulated by the norms of international humanitarian law, including Hague conventions. The problem of unrecognized territories is often reduced to the formal, legal format. Meanwhile, the issue is not simply a matter of complex legal cases. The conflicts between recognized and unrecognized territories are not the usual interstate disputes. The very creation of unrecognized territories and the beginning of the struggle for their recognition are facts of emotional, symbolic, social and cultural nature. Failure to take these facts into consideration makes impossible any effective settlement of ethnic conflicts that are an inevitable concomitant of these special state entities. The problem of unrecognized territories is the best subject for research on the balance between legal and actual aspects of state-building (or nation-building, political legitimization). The 19th-century German writer and politician, Ferdinand Lassalle, spoke of two kinds of constitution – "formal" and "actual." Analysis of the nature of unrecognized territories would yield better results if made from the position of "formal" constitutional law.

Thus,

  • а) the separatism is the reason of concentration of transnational criminality;
  • b) the victim states names this criminality as a terrorism for a legitimating of own fight with separatism.

Thank you, Wissahickon Creek 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

He is probably right on all of these items. Question is: Why is he posting them here? We are a template. We follow other lists as a rule on what our inclusion/exclusion criteria should be. His whole text should be posted here and here. When he can get consensus with the editors there to change those lists, then we automatically change the template here also. We can specifically NOT make political arguments for what to include or not. - Pernambuco 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your arguments for removing unrecognised states from the template appear to be political. That's explicitly not a good reason at Misplaced Pages (see WP:NPOV). Do you have a reason that is relevant? — Saxifrage ✎ 18:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but did you meant to say that it's NPOV to have unrecognized states by UN in the list? It means that you don't have a clue about the inviolability of international borders about the conducted ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, about the illegal and notorious practice aimed at unlawful alteration of the demographic situation in the occupied territories.--Wissahickon Creek 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that. You may be right that they don't belong, but political reasons are what you have given, and political reasons are invalid at Misplaced Pages. We do not make content decisions based on real-world politics, ever. Why I invoked NPOV is because that is a core meaning of neutrality: doing anything here for political reasons is inherently non-neutral.
What I think is the trouble is that you have tried to explain why the UN doesn't recognise them. It doesn't matter why, only that it is a fact the UN doesn't recognise them. If we were going to base this template on the UN's recognition of states, that is all that would matter. However, we are not going to do that. This template reflects List of countries. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the whole thing is a political rant. Actually, I agree with what Wissahickon Creek says but we can not let our personal likes or dislikes determine what goes onto the list. In this case, like Saxifrage points out, our template merely follows what List of countries includes, not more and not less. By the way, it also follows the List of sovereign states. If the user (Wissahickon Creek) has a problem with some of the entities on those lists, he should go there and seek consensus to make his proposed changes. It is important that there are standards and consistency on all Misplaced Pages pages, lists and all templates. This is why we can not make unilateral changes here just because we think it would be cool (It isn't). - Pernambuco 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
All the unrecognized territories are characterised by the relatively peaceful handling of ethnic and linguistic conflict potential. National identity consists of three main components: the national state, the national language and the history of the national people. Liberation and separation from national state are important aspects of this identity. Government policy focussed on nation building and economic reform are neglected. In order to understand this it is important to point to two factors: the first is the raison d’être of the state and the second is the peculiarities of the national polity. Discussion of the future of Europe continues to be a marginal political issue, partly because of the resistance of states, on both the practical (bureaucratic) and conceptual levels, created by the government leaders and heads of state. In turn, the nation-states are challenged from within by independent and separatist movements that have laid bare the fundamental hypocrisy of rhetorical discussions of the principle regarding the self-determination of peoples; interfering with states (and their borders) has proven to be a taboo for Europe. The growing flexibility of the globalised economy should be paralleled by a growing flexibility in the conception of the division and political organisation of territory, but this is not the case. Further inflexibility stems from the socio-economic inequity that we accept in our daily lives as normal, in particular as regards inequality in the use and division of territory. Equality, or better egaliberté (equality and liberty), is a sufficiently dynamic and flexible concept to be taken as a point of reference in envisaging the society, Europe, and world of tomorrow. It is only through the concept of egaliberté that we can imagine a Europe based on relations between regions that are conceived and organised on multiple scales and not as region-nations conceived on the basis of ethnicity or in the name of supposed cultural homogeneity. Maastricht deadlines, who is going to adopt the single currency, how to expand the Schengen Agreement, which language is to be used throughout Europe to overcome linguistic problems resulting from its expansion, which decisions will be unanimous and which will receive majority support, and so on – all these problems are debated as if they were technical questions, whereas they are political problems and their solution depends on the resistance of the states (and of some of their centres of politico-economic power). Until the politico-cultural centrality of the nationstate, and to what degree it will survive in tomorrow’s Europe, is squarely dealt with, the main political stumbling block to the building of a new Europe will remain unresolved. In recent years, the main geopolitical thrust – to a degree all over the world but particularly in Europe – has focused on ethno-national claims. The demise of the political blocs encouraged new political entities to regain their linguistic, religious, ethnic, and cultural identities These iconographies all relate to well-defined territories and consequently have led to claims of independence or, at the very least, autonomy. The separatist movements already in Europe have found new impetus for their claims, while the terms federation and confederation are increasingly being used to refer not just to the building of Europe but also to the ‘restructuring’ of the existing states within the Union. If a United Europe were already established, we would

probably now have a plethora of requests for secession and declarations of independence by states now in existence – and this would be justified. Each state can claim a national identity based on language, history, religion, ethnicity, culture, and so on. But, in turn, a great many European regions, now within the boundaries of nations, would have just cause to claim independence in the name of the principles of self determination which are, on paper, guaranteed by many international documents, beginning with the UN Charter. This is exactly the view held by many supporters of the so-called Europe of Regions: a supranational body in which the different European regions can have a greater measure of autonomy than the limitations imposed on them inside certain nation-states However, ethno-national claims are dangerous since they are a source of conflict. Their assumptions are all based on iconography, that is, on stasis – they operate on the level of the emotions and not reason, and stem from a view of space and territory in which borders are seen as dividing oneself from the ‘others’ view can lead to ethnic cleansing, in the most extreme cases, or to the spread (or re-legitimisation) of racism. In other cases it can lead to peace of mind, stemming from feeling alike and equal in one’s own backyard and in a dominant position over any internal minority groups. The process of economic globalisation is today considered both in a positive light and as irresistible. It does, however, seem to cause mobility and change. But it is worthwhile examining the matter in depth because both deterritorialising elements and others with roots in ‘static’ territories exist. The driving force of capitalism, of which globalisation is one of the most topical and evident aspects, is its flexibility and ability to adapt to conditions as it finds them, that is to say, it possesses a variable geometry – in its relationship with territory, it does not iconographically identify with anyone, since it aims at experience. Its flexibility is due to the fact that it seeks to create links with suitable territories and abandons exploited territories without remorse. Furthermore, it takes no interest in territories until they become suitable. Much has already been written about the de-territorialisation of the global economy in contrast with national economies, and this distinction is indisputable.--Wissahickon Creek 07:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic. That appears to have nothing to do with the matter at hand. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's exactly on topic, isn't it about the unrecognized territories of Europe? Well, unrecognized geopolitical entities (most importantly for our discussion, criminal states), if viewed from a formal and legal point of view, do not exist for the international community. The “virtual” existence of those states prevent them from being real participants in the world scene. The Americanization and Europeanization of the post-Soviet space was largely caused by the desire of the internationally recognized post-Soviet states to regain military and political control over territories they had lost (unrecognized entities). The emergence of GUUAM (originally comprised of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova, and now known as GUAM after Uzbekistan withdrew from the organization in 2005) and the Community of Democratic Choice, which comprises nine countries from the Balkan, Baltic and Black Sea regions, as alternatives to the CIS was a reaction to Russia’s support for the unrecognized states. The conflicts between recognized and unrecognized states are not the usual interstate disputes. Thus, the absence of formal international recognition of these contentious territories prevent them from being major political actors in the post-Soviet space. Wissahickon Creek 09:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You are arguing about whether these political entities should exist or should (not) be recognised. This is not debatable here. Since Misplaced Pages does not have the power to affect this issue, please desist from posting essays on this subject. Remember that "Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox" is firm policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Be conservative with TEMPLATE changes

Time to remind everyone: Do not make changes to a stable version of a template. Templates are used on a wide variety of Misplaced Pages pages and projects. A change here will affect those pages. Sometimes affect them in unexpected ways. It is easy to make changes on individual pages, but templates are different. Be very conversative when doing so. There has to be a very good reason and it has to be discussed amply here, first. Otherwise we can "break" other pages on Misplaced Pages that we don't even know about. The best solution is to not touch a template and just not make any edits there at all, unless the name of a country changes or its political situation. - Pernambuco 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom is a concept that is difficult to define and ‘enforce’ – it can, in fact, be ‘freely’ used by anyone and it is impossible to copyright the term. Fraternity may be left to the good intentions of individuals, but equality is intrinsically real and can only be effectively defined (and seen and perceived) on a practical level. I ought to point out that I am not talking about a Marxinspired vision of equality – from the very beginning the Marxist vision was too ‘iconographic’ and, in practice, clearly linked to a static concept of territorial control. But the movement factor is inescapable in human dynamics and, as the recent history of the Soviet bloc showed, it can only be temporarily eliminated. Etienne Balibar’s analysis of the egaliberté concept (equality is inseparable from freedom) is

interesting and one might even agree with it. However, since he has a Marxist background, it is no surprise that he cannot escape the concept of the state as being central – “There is no society without a state”. The state, however, is an iconography, whereas egaliberté is a movement factor, since it relates to the right of the individual, irrespective of geographic position, ethnic group, or culture. Using egaliberté as an interpretive key allows us to analyse the use made of territory and to pinpoint those controlling it. Equality becomes real if it is possible to organise its changing forms. In order to do this, equality needs space divided according to free agreements and not in terms of possession/property, inflexible views of pre-defined human groups (peoples, specific ethnic groups), or sacred boundaries. Conceptually speaking, egaliberté is strongly opposed to iconographies. Throughout the course of history there have always been changes in, and the interweaving of, peoples and cultures but they have mostly occurred as part of a winner-loser relationship. One would hope that such events could come about through negotiation and agreement, and that this could be possible because barriers are not insurmountable or, rather, we should not consider them as such. For example, I am sure that no one would have forecast the rapid disintegration of the USSR because of the power of the movement factor. What is more, throughout history there have been many, many cases of co-operation and the resolution of problems without bloodshed. ‘What a smaller entity can do should not be done by a larger entity,’is a libertarian idea of the 20th century, but a similar concept was adopted by the Council of Europe in its Charter of Self-Government. I will conclude saying that we should list only states accepted by UN. --Wissahickon Creek 07:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That all had nothing to do with your last sentence. Please stay on-topic and try to ground your arguments in Misplaced Pages policy. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Other territories entities"

What does this mean? If it means either/or, then it should say something like "Other territories and entities". If it means a possessive, then it should have an apostrophe after "territories". The current version makes little sense and looks frankly rather illiterate. Loganberry (Talk) 01:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Total illiterate and POV. Not to mention misleading.--Wissahickon Creek 07:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe it's supposed to be "Other territories and entities". Unless the template is unlocked soon (which, considering the state of consensus on this Talk page, seems unlikely), an admin will have to make that change. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Unrecognized countries yet again

Wissahickon Creek has asked those on the talk page of List of countries for input on this issue. I haven't read all of the long threads here (but note that people have rightly pointed out that Wissahickon Creek's objections are about whether these countries should exist, not whether they do exist).

I feel unrecognized countries should be included on this template since they are clearly an important part of the political landscape of Europe. As for the criteria for inclusion, you should probably use the same criteria as on List of countries. If an entity is a de facto or de jure state, it should be included (excluding micronations). A de jure state is included because everyone else thinks it's a state. A de facto state is included because it clearly is a state. Micronations are excluded (here I'm specifically thinking of Sealand), because they generally do not have de facto control—the lack of "control" by the sovereign state is through apathy, not impotence or treaty. It's no different from if a squatter on some land proclaimed independence for that land—if the country that land is part of doesn't evict the squatter, that doesn't really mean there is de facto control in a political sense. └  / talk  14:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is quite clear that we do not yet have a consensus. Current changes to the stable format of the template are therefore not appropriate (regardless of whether an admin does it or not). In the case of Wissachickon Creek, there is currently an inquiry at the Misplaced Pages Administrators' Noticeboards, under "Incidents".
one of the administrators told him this warning: you have become increasingly disruptive on 'Template:Europe' among others, to the point where you are focusing on it at the expense of any other editing.
The best thing now is to continue to discuss this. I am on the same page as Osgoodelawyer and share his views on this. - Pernambuco 13:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes

Please see here for an account of the changes I've made today, in the belief I was implementing consensus but with apologies if this is not the case. As of this message's timestamp, the templates {{Countries of Europe}} and {{Dependent and other territories of Europe}} constitute the former {{Europe}} template; there has been – at least, should be! – no information loss or gain. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you David for your edits. I support your view, however when I tried to explain my views in details people get nervous. --Wissahickon Creek 15:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No, just uninterested and concerned about WP:NOT (soapbox) violations.
Anyway, I think this is a good compromise, especially since the dependent..etc template is linked from the countries one. (To be clear though, I would also support it all being in one template, so my support of this shouldn't be construed as un-supporting that alternative.) — Saxifrage ✎ 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it should all be in one template. Otherwise, there will be no direct link from the unrecognized countries to recognized countries, something that is likely to be of significant use. └  / talk  19:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
OzLawyer, like in real life, unrecognized regions don't have the same status otherwise it would be the same. So, this new template is the reflection of this status. Nothing wrong with this one. I agree with this template. --Wissahickon Creek 19:56,

30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wissahickon Creek has already received a warning from an administrator. It includes this: "you have become increasingly disruptive on Template:Europe ( among others), to the point where you are focusing on it at the expense of any other editing.". He is currently in two different cases on Incidents, part of Admin's Noticeboard. - Pernambuco 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is arguing that they have the same status, in real life or here. If they were arguing that, then they would be saying they need to be inserted as "Countries" in the template, not as something distinct and separate. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The "direct link" is meant to be the "For dependent and other territories, see Dependent territory and List of unrecognized countries" pointer, but this formulation is pro temps and not particularly focused ("direct"). I was going to review it once the other {{Dependent or other territories of X}} templates were in place, but if anyone has some more focused links to hand, I'll happily incorporate them. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The argument on status and so on is not for this page. This is a template. It should only include what List of countries has and what List of sovereign states has. When a territory is included, even as an "unrecognized country", it should be included in our template here, too. I disagree with David Kernow and with the suspected sockpuppet, Wissahickon Creek. I agree with Saxifrage and with OzLawyer. These places should be included in the template to the extent that they are included in the other Misplaced Pages lists. This is about consistency and about maintaining standards. - Pernambuco 01:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I urge you to retract your words and please stop your personal attacks. Actually your behaviour is rummy and rather dubious not mine. --Wissahickon Creek 13:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me the choices are:
  1. Rename this and similar templates to {{Territories of X}} (or whatever the appropriate all-encompassing term might be) and include all "territories" whether sovereign and/or recogniz/sed or not;
  2. Retain {{Countries of X}} and {{Dependent and other territories of X}} with appropriate link/s to (article/s about) each other's content, as my understanding is that a country is a "territory" that has (wide) international recognition of sovereignty.
I also wonder if List of countries and List of sovereign states might need some attention, i.e. not all the "countries" listed there are countries according to the above. My interest here is consistency too but also templates that aren't overloaded and/or cluttered. Whatever the consensus might be (and my impression is that it's for something along the lines of the status quo) I'm happy to work for, toward and with it!  Regards, David (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
As I have mentioned elsewhere, List of countries may be a featured list, but it isnt immune from contestations, of which there are actually many. Some editors are prone to insisting that all country lists conform to this one article, but have they not realised that the list nearly amounts to a case of original research?--Huaiwei 12:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe Add topic