Template talk:Outlying territories of European countries

This template was considered for merging with Template:EU dependencies on 5 November 2013. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Russian islands integral parts of Russian Federation

The Russian islands listed are integral parts of the Russian Federation and are therefore not territories. 220.253.0.37 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with being integral parts of Russian Federation — the technical criteria for inclusion say "any political status other than independent country". Likewise, French Guyana or Réunion are integral parts of the French Republic; the Azores, Pantelleria and the Canary Islands are integral parts respectively of Portugal, Italy and Spain etc. Apcbg 17:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siberia and the Russian Far East are hardly outlying. They are contiguously linked to the rest of Russia. Hrcolyer (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, and this has been pointed out and corrected before. Fixed. Apcbg (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italian territories

Notwithstanding the definitional criteria, I really don't see any way that Pantelleria and the Pelagie Islands can be called "outlying territories" of Italy. Propose that they be removed. Matt 13:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

There must be some verifiable criteria for inclusion. That you "don't see" something is no good, someone else may "don't see" something else etc. If you can formulate a modified criterion that you consider better suited then you would be welcome to submit it here for discussion. Best, Apcbg 14:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, bearing in mind the intended purpose of this list, and setting aside for one moment the existing definition, do you think that these Italian islands should be included? Matt 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

'Think' on the basis of what? They are clearly outlying in the sense of being closer to Africa than to Europe. If you remove these territories from the template, why not the Canary Islands and Madeira, and starting that one would inevitably get lost in a mess of individual cases on which there will be no consensus. Again, your approach is subjective — you ask what I think. Even if I shared your view, others may disagree, or we may all agree today and other editors may disagree tomorrow. An objective, verifiable criterion (the present one or another) is obviously a must here. Apcbg 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to establish whether you, or anyone else, thinks that there is a problem to be fixed. The compilation of such a list is inevitably going to be subjective. The existing definition is completely subjective - designed to include those places that some person or group of people once thought, subjectively, ought to be included. There is no objective way to do it. So, I ask you again, do you think these Italian islands should be included or not? Matt 17:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

As I wrote above, yes I think those islands should be included. No I don't think there is a problem to be fixed, and I don't believe in fixing what ain't broke. Apcbg 18:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were just making a hypothetical case why someone might think they were "outlying" rather than explicitly supporting their inclusion yourself. This is where I'm coming from: I happened upon this list, and it seemed immediately obvious that it was intended to include territories that were "significantly detached" from the parent country. "That's interesting", I thought, "I didn't know that Italy still had any 'overseas' territories". But when I looked further I was disappointed to discover that these are just "ordinary" local Italian islands that happen to be included due to some quirk of the definition. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Matt 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC).

Oh, and I forgot to mention... in my view Gibraltar should also be included. To me, Gib is very obviously an "outlying" territory of the UK by any reasonable definition. I haven't been through the rest of the list though. Maybe there are other anomalies too. Matt 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The original name of this template was European Outlying Areas, subsequently transformed into Outlying areas of Europe, and eventually becoming the present Outlying territories of European countries, however the explanation clearly says Territories under European sovereignty but closer to or on continents other than Europe. That is, here outlying is with respect to non-European countries not with respect to other European countries. So while you are right that Gibraltar is an outlying territory of the UK, Gibraltar is not an outlying territory of Europe and correspondingly is not and should not be included. As for "ordinary local", who is to decide what is "ordinary" and "local"? Without an objective criterion that could be relative too; for instance Martinique, French Guiana and Reunion are French departments same like any other French department, proper part of EU, and thus arguably no less "ordinary local" than the Italian islands, and I doubt if any Spaniard would consider Ceuta or Melilla less "ordinary and local" than the Italian islands. Apcbg 09:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be thinking that the mere fact that someone has devised a definition and put it in writing automatically makes it somehow "objective". It doesn't. If I created a list of "famous tall people" I might say "this list contains all famous people over 6 ft 2 in", but does that mean that this is an objective criterion for tallness? Of course not. I think that a list of "outlying" territories of European countries is a good thing to have. It's useful and interesting. I do not agree, however, that the present definition is very sensible, since it includes territories that to me obviously aren't "outlying", and excludes ones that obviously are. Matt 19:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC).

I don't think that there is a magic, objective fix. In this case, I think a link to the appropriate section of transcontinental country is better than trying to consider these islands "outlying". A little bit of explanatory text wouldn't hurt, either. Kww 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being closer to another continent is objective, and so is the limit set by the Law of the Sea, while 6 ft 2 in comes out of nowhere. The case of outlying territories is specifically not covered by the notion of transcontinental country; the relevant section in that article says "Non-contiguous parts of countries are not considered (i.e. distant integral parts, extraterritorial possessions, dependencies and the like – examples include Bermuda, French Guiana, Greenland, and Hawaii,) although they may still be considered portions of transcontinental countries." As for explanation there is one in the inclusion criteria, which could be expanded if deemed necessary. Apcbg 06:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check inclusion criteria 3-a: "the nearest independent country is not a member of the Council of Europe". The nearest independent country to Pantalaria and Pelagie islands is Tunisia, therefore they should be included as outlying territories of Europe. --89.97.35.70 11:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that one. Plus Pantelaria is on the African plaque. --89.97.35.70 (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Mediterranean territories be excluded in regards to 3-a, Pantellaria and the Pelagie Islands are no different to other italian islands closer to the mainland. They aren't what this article was intended to cover and y'all know that. Phil Ian Manning (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what this template is expected to cover. If it covers territories outside Europe, it probably should include those islands. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible AfD

This template is huge! What use is it as a navigation template? Why would anyone want to navigate around these places? Caveat lector 14:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely of interest, but there are serious questions about Russia, as most of it is in Asia.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perejil Island

After the 2002 incident, Morocco and Spain informally agreed on returning to the statu quo ante. That is, no military forces, and no sovereignty symbol of any of them. Therefore, it's a disputed and inhabited territory. If someone wishes to include it, it should be done in a way that clearly states that it's a disputed territory without any effective sovereignty on it. --Ecemaml (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Islands

All eastern islands are closer to Asia than Europe aren't they? And why the definition includes members of the Council of Europe? Asian part of Turkey and Russia are still geographically Asian. --131.227.151.111 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Svalbard

Does Svalbard fit the criteria for inclusion, under section 3(b) the distance to the nearest European territory is more than 400 nautical miles (740 km)? Goustien (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that distance is less than 400 nautical miles, e.g. the nearest point of continental Norway is some 360 nautical miles away. Apcbg (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]