This is an archive of past discussions about Europe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Khirurg (talk·contribs) and I have both been editing in the third paragraph of the lead today and have a difference of opinion as to how best to word its first sentence. This user favors the wording: The earliest advanced civilizations in Europe sprang up in ancient Greece and Italy (most notably in Rome), and as a result these societies are the foundation of Western civilization. For a number of reasons I believe that my initial wording of the sentence is better: The earliest city-states in Europe sprang up in ancient Greece and Italy (most notably in Rome), and in this sense these societies form the foundation of Western civilization. This user's edit summary when initially changing my version to theirs read minor reword; not just city-states (e.g. Macedonia, Etruscans, etc. This reasoning did not seem to me logical to me, nor did the edit in any way improve readability or sense, so I reverted, stating in my summary: Not an improvement: circular. Also, ancient Italy is inclusive of Etruscan civilization. Khirurg then reverted my revert stating not an improvement" is not an argument. I again reverted stating Please observe WP:BRD; when you are reverted the proper next step is to open a Talk page section. This is a very minor content dispute so please do not escalate. And please respond to my whole edit summary, not just the part you find it easiest to dispute. Khirurg then reverted once again, stating WP:BRD applies to you, and don't lecture me about "the proper next step is to open a Talk page section" and "do not escalate". If you revert again I will report you for a 3RR violation. There is nothing "circular" about my edit. In order to avoid escalating the matter further and falling into edit war territory, I ask that we continue the conversation here. Any additional input on the matter from other editors would be quite helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
And to clarify, the circularity I pointed out is in stating in effect: X and Y are the earliest civilizations in Europe and "as a result" they are the foundation of European civilization. My version of the statement, on the other hand, focused on defining the sense of civilization we are using (i.e. "earliest city-states", "in this sense") when we properly identify Greece and Rome as foundational. Generalrelative (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"in this sense" is problematic because it implies that in some other sense in which they are not the foundational cultures of Europe, which is nonsense. "in this sense" is thus an example of WP:WEASEL. If "as a result" bothers you, we can also just replace it with a semicolon, e.g. ";they are the foundational cultures". As for "city states", I also find that problematic, because ancient Greece (in particular) but also Roman civilizarion were not confined to city states. For example, the kingdom of ancient Macedonia (ancient kingdom) was a particularly significant component of ancient Greek civilization, but was definitely not a city-state. Khirurg (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging, Khirurg. Here we get into a matter of actual disagreement because of course Greece and Rome are notthe foundational cultures of Europe. Other European cultures have their own roots. That's clear as day. The word "civilization" has several senses, and only in the special sense of "city building society" do Greece and Rome qualify as foundational. Further, WP:WEASEL refers to words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. My version, however, makes the sentence more specific by focusing in on the specific sense of "civilization" used there. Those are my substantive arguments, though I suspect we'll need a third opinion to settle this. Anyone else care to weigh in here? Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, the article doesn't say they are "the foundational cultures of Europe". The article says they are the "earliest advanced civilizations in Europe" (true), and the foundational cultures of Western civilization (also true). Khirurg (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the foundational cultures of Europe was verbatim from your previous comment. And no, it is not straightforwardly true that Greece and Rome were the earliest advanced civilizations in Europe because "advanced" is not an objective judgment. Weren't the builders of Stonehenge in their own way "advanced"? Where you draw the line and what criteria you count as "advanced" has an irreducible degree of arbitrariness to it, and thus the term is not encyclopedic. The statement that these societies are the foundational cultures of Western civilization is even more arbitrary if we understand "civilization" in its broader sense as "culture". Aspects of other cultures certainly contributed to Western civilization so why single out those of Greece and Rome as "foundational"? Again, there is no objective rationale here. That's why it's so important that we be clear that we're speaking of civilization in its narrower sense as "city-building societies" if we're going to speak of Greece and Rome as foundational to Western civilization.
Since it may be just you and I arguing this out here at present, let's agree to work from the sources, yeah? I've provided a reliable one which is our current footnote 10. Let's base our discussion on what can be found there (and note that it does focus on "city-states" as the foundation for the "rise of the state", despite how problematic you may find that focus; they're the reliable source, not us). If you have another RS to add, I'd be happy to discuss that too. But as it stands, the source supports my wording over yours, both stylistically and substantively. Generalrelative (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure you want to continue this? Because I can come up with a gazillion sources that Greece and Rome are the foundations of Western civilization, as well as the earliest advanced civilizations in Europe. Khirurg (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I am quite skeptical that such sources would represent current scholarship. So if you'd like, feel free to bring them up here. I'm open to being persuaded. And certainly a neutral third party could show up and decide this as well. For now though, my edit will stand. As the one whose version of the sentence was created more recently I believe the WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Come to think of it, there's really no reason to retain any reference to "Western civilization" here at all. That reference was just a relic from a previous version of the paragraph (where it was sourced to a children's textbook). It's not mentioned explicitly in the current citation at all. Maybe this solves our dispute? Generalrelative (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
A lot of readers follow this page, so having a dispute between two editors for a major article is not a great idea. Changing Ancient Rome to History of Italy does not seem to be helpful: the recent history involved Il Risorgimento, so 1871, not the Roman Empire. City states are discussed in Ancient Greece, but surely they are not the same as Provinces in the far-flung Roman Empire. A long, long while back (2007?) I helped another editor rewrite the History section of this article which at that stage only used a National Geographic book. That has changed. But surely the correct approach is to write the body of the article and then summarise the lead? Some parts of the lead were very recently removed with consensus and those removals seemed appropriate. But when the single sentence on Ancient Rome became modified, problems seem to have arisen. Mathsci (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Mathsci (talk·contribs): It's good to hear your perspective, and I definitely agree that a content dispute between two editors on a major page like this is not optimal (which is why I posted neutral invites here[[1]] and here[[2]]). However in restoring the previous version you've replaced a well sourced statement with one sourced to two inadequate citations: the first is incomplete ("Lewis & Wigen 1997, p. 226" – nowhere is the title of the book given) and the second is a children's textbook which is definitely not WP:RS. The source that I added, however, on early city-states in Greece and Italy being foundational to state-formation in Europe was a 2016 secondary source from an academic publisher authored by four respected historians. How about restoring that source and then working from there? Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Note too that History of Western civilization handles this topic without falling into the kind of naive reductionism that is so problematic in the sentence under dispute here. It states: The civilizations of Classical Greece and Ancient Rome are considered seminal periods in Western history. I'd be fine with swapping out "Western history" for "European history" and making that the first sentence of paragraph 3. Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(EC after long delay) From the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Rome, which began its republican history as a city-state, pursued policies of foreign expansion and government centralization that led to the annihilation of the city-state as a political form in the ancient world." The statements about Ancient Greece and its 31 city-states are fine. The statements about Ancient Rome are contradicted on EB and elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the sentence, "The civilisations of Classical Greece and Ancient Rome are considered seminal periods in Western history" is a fair compromise. As an uncontroversial statement in the lead, I do not think it requires a source. Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I actually think this version is much better [3]. More informative. Merely saying that they were "a seminal period" is vague and uninformative. Khirurg (talk) 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the perspective, Mathsci (talk·contribs), and again for your thoughtful engagement. Despite you and I agreeing on compromise language, and despite your pointing out to Khirurg (talk·contribs) that their edit summary referring to the current version as long-standing was false, I've now been accused of edit warring by Dr.K. (talk·contribs) for restoring that compromise language. For my part, I find the charge spurious, given that I've followed WP:BRD throughout, seeking a third opinion to resolve the dispute as recommended in WP:CON –– and indeed, found one. However at this point I will leave it to others to finish the job of fixing this sentence if they choose. Life is simply too short to allow minor content disputes to devolve into acrimony. Generalrelative (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Nick.mon recently removed one image of Hitler in Finland ini 1942, in favor of another of Hitler and Mussolini standing together in this edit, and then followed with this one. Sources were removed at the same time, so I reverted. But, the caption in the Finland image was very clunky, and deserved to be fixed up. Plus, although Nick.mon didn't give a justification for the image swap, so we don't know their their intent or how it's supposed to improve the article, I can see an argument that the second image is better. Should we keep the first one and just fix up the clunky caption? Go with the second one? Or a completely new image? Or neither? What do others think? Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot! Yeah, my bad... anyway I thought that this image was better, because it represented the two main Axis leaders, so I thought it would be more appropriate for that section, than an image of Hitler with the Finnish PM and President. Anyway, this is only my opinion. -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nick.mon: no, you're fine; was just hoping to hear from you, so thanks for that. I think your argument is a good one, and based on that I would support your change to the image on the right. Let's see what others have to say. (Don't forget the use of edit summary, though, especially in articles, as they can help avoid situations like this, and your change might've sailed through. Less important, perhaps, on Talk pages, but even then, it can help other users find generally how a conversation is going, especially if it turns out to be a very long one.) Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Non-Roman/Greek Influence in Western Civilisation
"European culture is the root of Western civilization, which traces its lineage back to ancient Greece and ancient Rome."
This sentence, which begins the third paragraph, places emphasis on Greece and Rome as the most ancient and/or prominent forces that created western civilisation. While they certainly had a major impact on future European civilisations, other equally-old cultures would also have big cultural and linguistic impacts in the European cultures and civilisations that would rise after the classical period and the fall of Rome.
Western civilisation, as defined by Wikipedia, is not just 'the stuff that came from Rome and Greece', but all Europe.
"Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Occidental culture, the Western world, Western society, and European civilization, is the heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, artifacts and technologies that originated in or are associated with Europe."
One big example I can think of are the Germanic peoples that moved into Roman territories in the Migration Period. While they did adopt and emulate a lot of Roman stuff, the form civilisations would take in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire would be unrecognisable if you removed the linguistic and cultural influences of the Germanic peoples.
Furthermore, there is more to Europe than the bits Rome and Greece played around in. The further north and east you go, the less influence they had culturally and linguistically. The Romans never conquered Scandinavia, with Scandinavian cultures having their own roots, but Scandinavia is absolutely part of Europe and so part of western civilisation. While you could go "Ah, but western civilisation, specifically the civilisation bit, is about cities", that's not what western civilisation is defined as in the Western Culture page of Wikipedia, which is what 'Western civilization' in the top-most quoted sentence links to. Western civilisation, as defined by the page that the quote links to, is about a whole massive bunch of cultural European stuff, not specifically and exclusively cities. Killer113 (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Coat of Arms of Austria
I would expect Austria's coat of arms to be the eagle, as shown on Austria's page. Any reason why the list of states uses a different one? --Bfx0 (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bfx0, what you see in the table appears to be a "lesser coat of arms". This is not only the case for Austria, but for many other countries in that table. Thayts•••08:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you and sorry for the late response. Is there a rule when lesser coats have to be used? Shouldn't they be replaced with the "supreme" coat? (I'd be willing to do it, but I feel there may be a good reason not to.) --Bfx0 (talk) 11:34, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Definition of an European Country
In some countries of Eastern Europe, students are thought that there are only six continents since Eurasia is treated as a single landmass on account of it being... a single landmass
So what defines Europe? historically, there is one easy definition that defines European countries from Asia: "It has a history of starting wars (Unless you are the Swiss)". 2001:EE0:4F4B:E490:B87D:62F0:BF7E:892F (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The article is clear on what defines Europe. You just need to read the lede and the section on its definition. So what is you point? Do you want to challenge the definition already present? If so please supply reliable sources to support your alternative defintion and an argument as to why this is a better defintion. Robynthehode (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Clickable map of Europe Question
The clickable map under "Definition" (which I don't want to touch based on my ignorance of how) erroneously identifies the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (Guernsey and Jersey) as the United Kingdom. They are Crown Dependencies, not part of the United Kingdom, as explained in the article. Can someone correct it? [Christophales 7 Dec 2020]
I figured out how to do it. I eliminated the "(UK)" for Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
Culture section
@Schi11: The article Europe has always been plagued with having too many images. The preference has often been for maps and images related to Word War II. The starting section on "culture" seems to be a bit out of the control at the moment: so far the attempts to add an image gallery seem to have been arbitrary without any particular rationale. (Why choose Buckingham Palace?)
The history section already to some extent covers culture, but possibly without too much European art (including museums & galleries), architecture, music, literature, folk traditions and cuisine (cheese, wine, etc, etc). The choice is probably far too great; and ultimately making any choice will almost certainly result in some countries feeling left out. (That has always been a reason for not having too many images.) On the other hand a good general reference on Europe—perhaps written by something like National Geographic with an international perspective—might provide guidance. Looking at a particular country or even a large city, it is usually easier to see how to proceed. But having a very good source might provide more ideas and a clearer perspective. Mathsci (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Mathsci:! Basically I only wanted to show the diversity of European culture through a picture gallery, also because I was a bit dissatisfied with the culture text at the beginning. Ancient Greece was missing! The special emphasis on the Christian Islamic conflict could also be discussed for a long time. And of course to summarize European culture in 5 sentences is almost impossible. With regard to the choice of images, of course, everything is always questionable. Rural culture (Dolomites), lifestyle (coffee house), feudal culture (Buckingham Palace), high culture, ........? I think a picture gallery would be a colorful little "stop sign" for many readers.
Athens Acropolis: No - already in the article;
Vatican Museums: I like St. Petersburg better;
Imperial Treasury, Vienna: Worth discussing, but no;
Alcázar of Seville: I think it's better than the Alhambra, also because of the palm trees on the picture - garden culture.
A geographical approach or experiment: Baltic Sea and Mediterranean; West, North, East, South and Middle. The text has not yet been fully thought out:
Alcázar of Seville, a complex with a long history going back to Moorish times.
I do not think this page is a good place to try and show the diversity of European culture, nor that a gallery is a useful way to undertake this aim. We have a main page, Culture of Europe, which should, theoretically, show this. Are these pictures present there? CMD (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, this article here is fairly stable, as you and I know (since we are both long-term watchers/editors). Culture of Europe is not brilliantly written: but at least it picks the same Renoir picture; and, in this article, "culture" is taken in a broader way, although without expanding on it very much at all. I tend to agree that it's best left like that. But—because of an edit-conflict here—I will briefly comment on how theoretically images could be selected, although I am against adding new images or a gallery. The images above still seem arbitrary; history and religion are confused with culture. Yes, there are historic relations between North Africa, the Holy Roman Empire, and so on, but that is not what is meant by culture here (as CMD has written).
Comment on how images could theoretically be chosen
Above I mentioned the savoury flammekueche, as part of gastronomy that is significant in Alsace and the regions near France and Germany. A similar but better known savoury is the true Neapolitan pizza, counted amongst UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists. I also checked the List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription. There are cultural and natural sites (including alpine areas, such as parts of the Bernese Oberland and one of the Italy-Switzerland narrow gauge railway lines). Many of the images discussed here can be found there (implicitly). For example, for music and literature, Bayreuth (musical theatre) and Weimar (Goethe-Schiller memorial) are counted. Le Corbusier and Bauhaus are there for architecture, etc. In the Intangible lists are French cuisine and Neapolitan pizza; various kinds of wine- and beer-making. Lace-making too. Also there are various kinds of folk music associated with traditional costumes; and wooden churches in forests in Poland. Most of historic city areas are UNESCO listed. Also much of Italy and Greece (including ancient sites and monasteries as well as Florence, Siena, Pisa, Padua, etc). So there is a lot of choice, but there is no point in duplicating the same kind of image. To justify a particular UNESCO site will always require finding a WP:RS. Only the image of the villager with two goats and three hens is not covered by UNESCO at the moment. ~
Basically I added the gallery in order to increase the reader's attention at the end of the long article. Colorful articles also look more attractive. Of course, the choice is difficult. A cultural mix of Venice, opera, Norwegian wooden architecture, Nuremberg, French cafes and Scotland is a bit like "Epcot Center Disney World Orlando", but ... The first 6 European Capitals of Culture would offer themselves. It's a bit bland, but maybe democratic. Schi11 (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS does not support you at the moment and your ideas on adding images are WP:UNDUE. Images of Moscow, Istanbul, London and Paris already appear in the article. CMD has already told you that adding new images for the "Culture" section is UNDUE. (BTW "colorful" and "center" are US English—British English is used in this article.) Your comments about Disney are hard to decipher. Why are you mentioning Norway, Scotland or Nuremburg? The Goethe-Schiller Monument in Weimar and the Bayreuth Festspielhaus are UNESCO work heritage sites. Similarly the Drottingholm Theatre in Stockholm. The first movement of Nights in the Gardens of Spain by Manuel de Falla was inspired by the gardens in the Alhambra. In the late 1960s, there was a famous BBC series (later a book) by Kenneth Clark called Civilisation. The Renoir painting is described in Episode 17 of Lord Clark's book: it's available on archive.org. BTW I think WP:CONSENSUS is the term used on WP, not democracy. Mathsci (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello and good morning! I support the chosen path not to make a gallery in culture. It's a shame - it only fails because of the difficult choice - I wanted to upgrade culture because it often falls short between war and economy. I mentioned Norway, Nuremberg and French bistros with a cheeky wink because these are typical examples that are given in Epcot Center Disney World Orlando for European culture. Venice, the Eiffel Tower, knight castles, Spanish-inspired pirate fortresses and Roman statues are all on display in Las Vegas. Greetings from the lock down! PS: Just in case there should be a gallery - I'm a fan of the Cappella degli Scrovegni! Schi11 (talk) 07:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
The description under “The School of Athens” by Rafael in the early modern period section incorrectly names the central figures in the painting Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci, while the common understandings is that these central figures represent Plato and Aristotle. Tehilla2 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
In Geography: Fauna, the paragraph immediately beneath the picture of the European Bison is just a list of animals instead of an informative sentence that makes some sort of assertion. Tehilla2 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
“Westward” instead of “eastward”
In the Flora subsection of the Geography section, in the last sentence of the last paragraph, shouldn’t it say “westward” instead of “eastward”? Tehilla2 (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The sentence surely has an an error, since and southern Russia should the to Southern Russia or something else maybe if the direction would be clear...(?).(KIENGIR (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC))
Turkish: A commonly spoken language in Europe
Besides the native speakers in Thrace and the several minorities in Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, North Macedonia, Kosovo, Ukraine, etc. L1 Turkish is also spoken by a large Diaspora in Western Europe. Not to mention that Turkish is the official language in Cyprus, Turkey and official minority languages in several eastern European countries. I think all these points would permit the listing of 'Turkish' in the sidebar of this article. Especially given the fact that the current 'Most used languages in Europe' list contains languages that are less spoken than Turkish in Europe. Having said this I'll also edit the number in the other wiki article about languages in Europe. 12.000.000 L1 speakers obviously only refers to Thrace, Cyprus and Bulgaria (and is also outdated). Which is not the total amount of L1 speakers in Europe. The census that was used for this number also dates from 2012. By using this source I have found that Eastern Thrace had a population of 11.872.908 in 2020. Adding the earlier stated 1.200.000 native turkish speakers in Cyprus and Bulgaria turns this number to almost 13.100.00 turkish speakers. And we have yet to include other Turkish natives in for example Kosovo or Greece. I also found a source that, based on a survey, made a count of how many people are speaking turkish from their mother tongue in the Diaspora. https://languageknowledge.eu/languages/turkish This survey was taken in 2012. In 2012 germany had a population of 80.330.000 and according to the site 2,33% of the german population had the Turkish mother tongue. This gives us the following number: 1.871.689 people who speak Turkish in Germany only. Doing the same for all other countries on that list except Bulgaria and Cyprus we get to a total of 2.679.765 + 11.872.908 + 1.200.000 = 15.752.673 L1 Turkish speakers in Europe. I honestly think the survey from 2012 underestimated the amount of turks that speak turkish from a mother tongue in Europe. But I don't have another source yet so this will do. I'll edit both pages now TheGroninger (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I've removed Hungarian and replaced it with Turkish, as Turkish has more speakers with the new count. I don't know what the limit is but if you want to add Hungarian after Turkish feel free to do so TheGroninger (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Continent status
Europe was historically assumed to be a continent but there's not much basis for this, as it is part of the same continental plate as Asia. I suggest we revise the opening sentence to acknowledge that it's actually a region of the Eurasian continent.
Continent have no inherent "status", they're arbitrary constructions unrelated to tectonic plates. CMD (talk) 12:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Klaipeda
This edit request to Europe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Since the "clickable" part prevents it from being responsive and is merely a nice plaything, bad for accessibility too, wouldn't it be better to add the Country's names to the flags in the picture and list them as links in the description?
Baerbeisser (talk) 12:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Most of the Greek Isles are geographically part of Europe, but some of them are geographically in Asia (the North Aegean Islands and the Dodecanese lie on the coast of the Asian part of Turkey, on the Asian continental shelf). The map purports to show geographic (not political) Europe, so to the extent that it is the North Aegean and Dodecanese islands that are colored gray and not green (I can't seem to enlarge the map enough to see which islands, apart from Crete, are colored green), then the map is correct. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Just because an island may be closer to the mainland of a certain continent, does not mean it is geographically part of that continent. Take Iceland for example. It is closer to Greenland, which is closer to North America, however Iceland is not considered North America. We also have Socotra as an example. It is closer to mainland Africa, but is mostly considered part of Asia (from what I've seen at least). One more example could be St. Lawrence Island, which is closer to Asia, yet is North American. All Greek islands are geographically Europe, except for possibly the islands Kastellorizo and Ro. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This edit request to Europe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Add this to the end of "There exists a political movement favouring the evolution of the European Union into a single federation encompassing much of the continent."
Europe and the EU are not interchangeable as not all of Europe is a member of the EU. Europe is used in Britain to describe Britain as part of the European continent. “You cannot deny geography. The UK is in Europe.” [1]HappyBiblia (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
That source seems to be equating the EU and Europe, as it is said in the context of why Britain should remain in the EU. CMD (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Europe is a continent
As the continent page covers in-depth, there are differing definitions and models for how to divide Earth's land into continents.
Wikipedia was, until the 19th October edit, internally consistent with 7-continents model. But now it is inconsistent, as someone edited "Europe is a continent" to "Europe is a landmass"
Let's compare the nouns used in current lead sentences:
"The Americas, which are also collectively called America, are a landmass comprising the totality of North and South America"
Previously, Wikipedia described Europe, Africa, Asia, North America and South America ascontinents, Eurasia as a continental area, and Afro-Eurasia and the Americas as landmasses. We're now in an inconsistent state where Africa and Asia are continents, but Europe is a landmass. This isn't consistent with any of the continental models; if Europe isn't a continent, then the continent it belongs to is either Eurasia (in which case both Europe and Asia are landmasses, not continents), or Afro-Eurasia (in which case Africa, Europe and Asia are all landmasses and not continents). But that's not what was changed. Only Europe was relabeled "landmass" and both Asia and Africa are still continents.
And even the Europe article itself, for example the hatnote:
"This article is about the continent"
Europe is a continent, not a landmass. Please edit it back to "Europe is a continent"... or start editing Africa, Asia, North and South America to say they are landmasses, not continents 31.111.26.32 (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, there. I have changed it back to continent. I did not realise it got changed and should remain as continent, not landmass. This is the English Wikipedia and English-speaking countries consider it a continent. If this was the Russian Wikipedia or another Eurasia-continent-believing country, then it should be landmass. But it is not, it is the English Wikipedia. Thanks. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The lede of this article has evolved gradually, as the edit history shows (I've watched/edited it since 2007). At the moment the final sentence of the first para appears to have become essay-like and unstable. The first para appears to be about the two different types of geography (physical geography and human geography)—as well as the concept of "continents" and "borders".
In later paragraphs "Western civilisation" is summarised in the context of the ancient world (possibly the topic of world history). Even for ancient Greece and Rome, that has required providing sources when disputes have risen. For the single sentence under discussion here, please read the relevant sections in the main article and identify the best reliable sources used (one or two probably suffices). It can then be checked that those WP:RS accurately summarise that single sentence. That sentence might possibly need to be modified, but that can be determined by consensus. As on previous occasions, adding citations should hopefully solve any potential problems. Mathsci (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2022
This edit request to Europe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The 'border' between Europe and Asia has changed often, but many modern ones put the border on the Ural River, dividing Kazakhstan between the two. CMD (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
The Russian population in Europe is not 144,0000,000. Change it or delete it. Stop being lazy and ridiculous. Or do you want to keep Wikipedia looking incorrect and silly? Sirhissofloxley (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Rather than accuse good faith editors you could change the population supported by reliable sources or discuss it like an adult on this talk page. Reverted your edit. Robynthehode (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
So you're deliberately changing it back to make it wrong again? This is not a project run by adults, I've been on it for 16 years and it's ran by petty dictators. So I'm not going to try and reason, keep it wrong Sirhissofloxley (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
What are the main traveling routes and types? For economy and humans aswell?
The totality of Europe seen by the Apollo 11 crew, above Africa and covered by clouds
Yes I know, Europe is pretty hard to see, but once after cropping it would be a bit better. This is the best image that I can find for Europe. What do you guys think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Color-calibrated version. The Earth image used by French Wikipedia is a DSCOVR photograph which features the continent pretty much free of clouds (sorry Spain) but I feel it better represents our planet as a whole rather than just Europe. Unfortunately the only natural color space shots of Europe are from the ISS but those images are too zoomed-in. Aaron1a12 (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Economy of Europe
I think this would be in the economy section:
Europe has a long history as the world's richest and most productive part of the world. At the
time of Christ's birth is estimated western European output per capita was approximately 30%
higher than the world average. Year 1500 had this advantage increased to 40%.[1] After the development of science and
the Industrial Revolution in Europe grew its lead quickly, in 1700 produced an average European
almost 70% more than world's average population, and in 1850 was taken over the entire 150%.
Around the year 1900 was Western Europe's leading role as the world's most productive area has
been taken over by the former European colony of the United States, but Europe has continued to
belong to the world's richest, most productive and knowledge-producing regions.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.103.205.2 (talk • contribs) 12 January 2011
As native, I would like to declare that "Ukrayina" sounds closer to national variation rather than "Ukrajina".
Most common languages
Turkish language has at least 15 million native speakers in Europe. It is more than the number of Greek speakers. It should be mentioned in the infobox under Most common first languages:.
It doesn't make Wikipedia inaccurate. It would be inaccurate if Portuguese had more speakers than one of the languages already in the list, but Portuguese has fewer speakers than each of the languages now in the list. The list already includes 12 languages; how many is it supposed to have? There's nothing special about the 10 million mark. If we were to add Portuguese, then we'd have to add five other languages (Bavarian, Greek, Hungarian, Swedish, Czech) that have more speakers than Portuguese and that aren't already on the list, which would bring the count to 18. And then someone else could come along and make the same argument for 5 million, then 1 million, etc. The 12 languages already there are enough, or perhaps even too many. Largoplazo (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Where do you see a reference to the Armenia language on the page? There's a table of countries. For each country, it gives the name of the country in languages of that country, but not the name of the languages themselves. Also, "Յայաստան" appears nowhere on the page, only Հայաստան, which is the Armenian name for Armenia. Largoplazo (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
European Union's GDP should be added as a non-numeric entry to the table of the top 10 economies in Europe
Reason being is that the economy of the European Union is a recognized entity of the G20 major economies and numerous UN agencies. Furthermore, official data is provided by the IMF, so I see NO reason for any member to insist on excluding it from the table. Thanks. Pyruvate (talk) 07:36, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Europe a "peninsula"
How is Europe a peninsula? Is Australia an island? Is Africa a peninsula because it's surrounded on 3 sides by water? Or cand you call America an island? Europe is a continent from a geographical point of wiew. It might be a good idea to remove the "peninsula part". 46.97.177.247 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Europe is a peninsula, Australia is an Island, Africa is a peninsula, The Americas is an island, and Europe is not a real continent, it's an arbitary separation. Glad to be of help Jamesman666 (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
A better map of modern Europe would add a lot to this page
I find the map of modern Europe that the page contains incredibly frustrating to use. I think I am speaking for the majority of users that when looking at a map of modern-day Europe one of the first things, the most basic things, I'd expect to see are the country borders clearly delineated (along with major cities, major rivers, too).
But the political boundaries are given short shrift at the benefit of information that seem clearly secondary (like highways)
If there is too much information to include in one map (which is easy to believe) then how about adding one more map, the sort of typical High-School textook type with the nations of Europe shown in different colors (again, like several of the historic maps)
Instead, on this map, which I'm sure someone thinks is very clever, they are essentially impossible to make out. The hard to see purple lines that are used to outline countries are very difficult to differentiate from the only slightly narrower purple lines used to define local state boundaries.
The final impression is that it's just one big Europe with France sort of indistinctly "around here, roughly" but seamlessly blending into Belgium "over there".
And using this map it is virtually impossible to see the shape of France, Germany or any other nation at a glance, and what counties it borders, and other things like that.
It would be nice if someone worked to put a more basic politcal map of Europe into this article, so that it would be useful to, for example, showing to a 10 year old to discuss where all the World Cup teams are from. As it stands: it completely fails at that.
The modern map that fails to make political boundaries visible (perhaps an ideologically driven decision? It is here:
Europa has quite a big landborder with Asia. Unlike most peninsulas, there is no clear boundary between it and the landmass it's connected to. Why is Europe called a peninsula in this article instead of a subcontinent, or just a region in Eurasia? Wikifan153 (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've seen Europe described as a peninsula, and there is a source cited (https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/europe-human-geography), although I've been dubious about that classification for the same reasons you are. (It would be a more reasonable description IMO if the border of Europe ran from the Azov to the White Sea; I've seen historic maps that do that, using I think a combination of rivers to mark the boundary, but that's not the modern definition). The Peninsula article also contradicts that claim by saying that the Arabian Peninsula is the largest peninsula. Is there a definitive definition or list of peninsulas that we can consult? Failing that, would it be better to say that Europe "has been described as" a peninsula, rather than that it is one? 14:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
If always find this tricky. When does something ceases to be an island (is the entire Eurasian continent an island), how narrow does an isthmus have to be to allow for a peninsula - and can we truly call the thousands of kilometers along the Ural narrow?? In fact it would almost make more sense to call South America a peninsula of North America connected through rather narrow Central America isthmus (but that never seems to be suggested for some reason). The given source national geographic just states, without any explanation or source, that Europe is a peninsula. As sources go I find such an unsourced, unexplained statement rather thin (even if from a respectable popular scientific journal). So in any case I think some additional sourcing would be needed. Arnoutf (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Though Cyprus is included as a European state, it is absent (coloured grey rather than Green) on the map of Europe. Can a tech-savvy editor correct this? Politis (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The map is based on traditional geography, not geopolitics, hence why only half of Russia is green etc. CMD (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the article covers a number of possibilities and it justifies both your and my perception. It opens with,
"Europe is a large peninsula conventionally considered a continent in its own right because of its great physical size and the weight of its history and traditions".
According to the first part of the introduction, as a peninsula Cyprus, Malta etc are indeed excluded from Europe. But according to the second part, as a place of 'history and traditions', they are included in Europe. The more recent definition of Europe - and the article clearly tracks its shifting borders - includes Cyprus and Malta, as highlighted in the EU report for their membership (I do not have the report at hand just now). Politis (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The Cyprus topic has nothing to do with being an island like Malta, it has to do with the geographic borders that existed most recently, before geographers moved on from the concept. There is no shifting border that included Cyprus, Cyprus became included due to the cultural conception of Europe, not the geographical one (culture obviously not lending itself to mapping in the same way). The way the maps in the article are set up is quite good at showing these, noting the geography as the base, but including places like Cyprus and Armenia in lists and labels. CMD (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
The maps are not that clear cut. In the map 'Köppen-Geiger climate classification map for Europe', Turkey in Europe is excluded from Europe. In the regional map Europe#/media/File:Grossgliederung Europas-en.svg, Cyprus is included as part of, Southeast Europe while Turkey in Europe is excluded. ASO. Malta is explained as, "Malta was considered an island of North-western Africa for centuries, but now it is considered to be part of Europe as well". But it is now mapped mostly as part of Europe. There is clear inconsistency. I have no objection to your definition but could you edit the article so as to have greater consistence? Just a thought. Politis (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
You're not wrong about the Köppen map, that's a weird one. The Grossgliederung Europas map though appears to be from a specific organisation, and so reflects that viewpoint. That seems reasonable in concept, although I don't know if that particular viewpoint is more due or not than other potential cultural divides. These are all vague human concepts, so even if we mostly describe the most common geographical boundaries, there will be some variation in the maps people produce. CMD (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
No religions in introduction?
The introductory paragraphs do a good job of synthetising the history of Europe, but they don't mention anything about religion, and especially of the shift from Paganism to Christianity and, in more recent times, the spread of more secular worldviews. Christianity in particular, while born in Asia, has had a pivotal importance in European history and still is extremely relevant on a cultural level. 79.30.92.106 (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Total Area of Europe is less than total area of Russia
Why is the measure of total area of Europe indicated to be less than total area of Russia ?
If there is a mention of the area of Europe excluding the area of Russia that is not easily apparent. Solo-man (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Does it say that explicitly? In any event, the area of Europe (including European Russia) is about 10 million km2 and the area of Russia is about 17 million km2, so what are you disagreeing with? Largoplazo (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2023
This edit request to Europe has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I deleted the following from the religion section "The Czech Republic, Estonia, Sweden, Germany (especially the eastern part) and France are home to a particularly large numbers of irreligious people.[1]"
Nothing is wrong with the source except that it is 25 year old. A claim about demographic makeup made so long ago (a full generation) may easily misrepresent the more current status quo. As the argument is not central to the narrative I think it is better to move it here for now and see whether we can update it, and otherwise just remove it (rather than leaving such outdated information in the article.)
^Dogan, Mattei (1998). "The Decline of Traditional Values in Western Europe". International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 39: 77–90. doi:10.1177/002071529803900106. S2CID143999152.
There is a typo "According to a population projection of the UN Population Division, Europe's population may fall to between 680 and 720 people by 2050, which would be 7% of the world population at that time." I guess the word "million" is missing.
I also would note that this seem to belong more to the Demographics section as it is not about ethnic groups. Krautzalajos (talk) 11:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
What is the true area of Europe? According to this article, the area of Europe is 10,180,000 sq km, but a lot of the sources I found on the Internet state that the area of Europe is 9,938,000 sq km. Should we change that?
My argument would simply be that the opening section might carry through some of the same spirit, namely very briefly presenting Europe as a convention, as something that has morphed over time rather than as something that "is".
Just consider the current opening line: "Europe is a continent".
Updating the opening line or two accordingly would also better reflect the overall content of the page, which nicely explores the history of this concept. IsabellaOL (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Infobox map revert
On 04:05, 28 August 2023, I replaced an infobox map. My edit summary was, "replaced identical projection map that was basically a duplicate, with a map with countries names, per MOS:IMAGE, "Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter."
I do think that for readers it is more useful having a map with the European countries' names than a map only showing the borders of said countries. The intercontinental border is not perfect but I couldn't find another map of Europe with countries' names in English in Commons so I decided to upload this that I found elsewhere. Regards, Thinker78(talk)00:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I have noticed that if I use the svg format as advised by Commons, they may become poorly legible if they have legends inside (check the link of the source, it is legible). I will upload it in png format to see if it becomes better and if it's accepted. Regards, Thinker78(talk)01:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Apparently the legibility issue is caused by poor resolution of the screen shot mechanism in the operating system. I will follow up. Regards, Thinker78(talk)18:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the editor who reverted this map addition. It does not look like an infobox-level quality image. Also, it's been quite a considerable amount of time that all continent articles have only an orthographic projection in the infobox. The article's second section, § Definition, contains in my opinion a much more convenient (image) map with countries captioned and as a bonus linked, although quite densely. That one could be improved (too). –Vipz (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have in mind MOS:IMAGEQUALITY, which states, "A map of Moldova should show its frontiers with Romania and Ukraine, so people may know where the country is located in relation to its neighbors." The problem is when the reader has no idea which one is Romania and which one is Ukraine. Therefore, I think one of the maps should have the countries' names.
I guess you mean the list in the infobox? The first point is that the term city is dealt with differently in different countries. E.g. Paris (city) is relatively small (2 million), but with it's banlieu's (suburbs) included it is massive (over 11 million). (greater) London is really weirdly defined as the city of London is very small (pop ~ 10.000) and greater London (as we know London) has a unique status under British law (population about 10 million). These oddities and differences between national definitions make city populations incomparable. Therefore we tend to use different measures that capture suburbs etc. .
The current order is now 1. Moscow 2. Paris 3. London 4. Istanbul 5. Madrid 6. Saint Petersburg 7. Milan 8. Barcelona 9. Berlin 10. Rome). The data seems to be extracted from page 23 of the source that lists Largest Built up Urban Areas (whatever that may mean). Istanbul is listed 2nd there, so how we get to the European part (with the same definition) is not clear, and Madrid is followed by Essen-Dusseldorf (not listed)) with Athens ranking higher than Rome.
This brings me to several problems with the current listing.
(1) What definition do we use? The urban area definition in the source (demographia) is only one; the city proper is problematic for all the reasons I mentioned above, the metropolitan area as defined by Eurostat is based on high quality data but only available for EU countries (ie not all European countries). This is not so easy, but I can live with urban area (but a better definition would be preferable).
(2) The list does not follow the source by (a) omitting the Essen-Dusseldorf urban area. While this area consists of 2 cities (Essen and Dusseldorf as well as additional smaller ones) the omission seems to be original synthesis, as cities like Saint Denis are included with Paris it seems arbitrary to exclude Essen-Dusseldorf (b) similarly the source lists Istanbul as 2nd, but without further sourcing that city is moved down to a lower ranking by only counting it's European part. Seems another original reinterpretation of the source. (c) The source lists the Athens urban area (slightly) higher than the Rome area. This may be a typo, but if we only list the top 10 it would dorp out in any case is Essen-Dusseldorf is added.
(3) Demographia, from which the source is derived, is a conservative, small US based think tank. The report does use EU JRC numbers however newer version are apparently available at[5]. But not so easy to extract. So some update seems to be in order; and if feasible without doing our own synthesis, these sources may be preferable.
While a lot of this relates to your concern, Kyiv would not feature in any larger urban area definition. But worthwhile indeed to scrutinise the listing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
That's great, because the list includes Milan with a population of 1,366,180 people, but not Kyiv with a population of about 3 million Septemberten (talk) 09:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The used source indeed lists Kiyev (their spelling) at about 3 million but it lists Milan at about 5.5 (which by the way ranks well above the capitcal of Italy, Rome sitting at 3.3 million). We can discuss the sourcing and definition, but I would not favour a change to city limits (what you seem to favour). The problem being that city limits is problematic as different countries deal with suburbs differently (see abovementioned Paris which is about 2 million (city limits) but 11 million including suburbs and Athens about 650,000 but with suburbs about 3.4 million, with the latter numbers begin more sensible given the size of the urbanisation of these cities). In any case, as long as we use this source we have to follow it. Arnoutf (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The first sentence "The political map of Europe is substantially derived from the re-organisation of Europe following the Napoleonic Wars in 1815." is nonsense. Compare political map of Europe from 1815 (which moreover shows "congress Poland" that did not exist in fact), which is in this article, with recent political map of Europe. Much more important were later unifications of Italy and Germany, new countries in Balkan, new countries after first WW, new countries after breaks of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Which of these countries existed in 1816: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine? None! And these were only examples, not full list. Nadsenec2 (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Most of eastern Europe was Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, and Prussia. None of these exist today, of course. I don't see that today there's any particular continuing bond special to the countries that arose out of any one of these. Largoplazo (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Old inaccurate data in "Major cities and urban areas" section
I find the .eu reference inappropriate, it seems to derive from (and feed into) a confusion between Europe and the EU, which are two very different things:
- Less than 50% of the area in Europe is controlled by the EU (this is true even if you include disputed territories in Ukraine).
We have an article: .eu. It is the top-level domain for the European Union. Not the same thing as Europe, the continent, which is the subject of this article. I agree that it doesn't belong in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Cyprus and Armenia are not geographically located in Europe. They are only associated with Europe, and thus should be removed from the list. Can somebody change it, because the page is currently protected. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44E:FA4A:0:70B8:89BD:B14C:13B1 (talk) 13:14, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
There has been a longstanding practice of treating all these continent lists expansively. Continents are ill-defined cultural concepts, and it is easier to have entries in multiple lists with clarifying notes than to pick and run with a particular definition across all pages. CMD (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Number of muslims in Europe
The article says 17.9% of European population is muslim, that would be around 135 million people. The source cited to support this information and also other articles on wikipedia itself (see ‘muslims in Europe’) clearly state that they are around 45 million, so around 6% 151.18.129.5 (talk) 09:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Russia is not in Europe.
This article mentions that Russia is a part of Europe but last I checked , it was a part of Asia.If Russia used to be in Europe , then I would have excused this mistake but it was NEVER part of Europe.Any thoughts? 180.151.17.56 (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The last you checked where? Europe doesn't end at the Russian border. Moscow is in Europe. St. Petersburg is in Europe. And, if you look at Kaliningrad, the piece of Russia wedged between Lithuania and Poland, where do you think it is? Largoplazo (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Although Russia lies both in Asia and Europe, it is generally listed as a European country, at least politically, since it's capital Moscow lies in Europe. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Before 1600 all of Russia was in Europe so clearly a fully European country then, and still the majority of the population (~70%) lives in the European part. So Russian history and population support a predominantly European classification of Russia (although the area in Asia is larger, it is thinly populated). Arnoutf (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
So far the article does not mention climate change once. How would people feel if I added an excerpt to climate change in Europe to this article, perhaps below the section on "climate"? I think an excerpt is better than new text because this is something that will continually change over time, and would then have to be updated in two places, not just one. Compare also with how it's done for the Africa article. Pinging User:Chidgk1 and User:RCraig09 for comment. EMsmile (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
No strong opinion Though transclusions are often read clumsily when inserted, and tend to bloat the length of destination articles, this is article is a reasonable target for a transclusion. —RCraig09 (talk)15:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
No excerpts, please – it's a total pain to have to go to some completely other page to edit the content of an article. Why not just write or copy over a sentence or two of content that is directly relevant to the continent of Europe and nowhere else (if there is any?). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Excerpts are a brilliant tool for any content that is likely to change over time, in the near future. So rather than updating the content in several places, it just needs to be updated in the source article (climate change in Europe in this case) and is automatically updated in any other article where the content is used. We use them a lot in WikiProject Climate Change as some of the figures are continually going up or down (think sea level rise, ocean acidification, global surface temperatures, CO2 in the atmosphere etc.). See e.g. the way excerpts are used at effects of climate change. So I don't think they are a "total pain", quite the contrary.
For this case here, we can still ponder if it's better to just copy two general sentences across, perhaps those that do not contain numbers. In any case, do folks agree that it would be fair to say something about climate change in Europe in the Europe article? EMsmile (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I've added the excerpt now (2 paragraphs) in a section on "climate change" as I didn't see strong opposition to it / no continuation of the discussion. I can't figure out why there is no paragraph break between the two paragraphs though. EMsmile (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Alcázar of Seville, a complex with a long history going back to Moorish times.
Miramare Castle, Italy
Monastery of the Holy Trinity, Meteora, an Eastern Orthodox monastery in central Greece.
Done Thanks! --Ferien (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
00:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
