Template talk:Sovereign states of Europe/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Template:Sovereign states of Europe Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Template:Countries of Europe → Template:Sovereign states of Europe — For the following reasons:

• Takes the template in line with List of countries and List of European countries, both of which now either redirect or have been moved to a title with sovereign state in instead of country because of this very issue and are more stable since.
• Brings the template into line with {{Non-sovereign territories of Europe}} which covers sovereignty in the title.
• Resolves the issue of what type of countries belong in this template and ensures that only sovereign states are listed, so non sovereign countries are not misleadingly placed in line with them which would cause huge confusion for people when they see Northern Ireland, England, Wales, Scotland and United Kingdom all in line with each other as equals. They are not equals. Four of them are Countries of the United Kingdom, only the United Kingdom is equal to France, Germany etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. "Sovereign state" is the primary meaning of "country". There is also a second meaning that allows us to speak of the four constituent "countries" of the UK, the Basque country, and probably many others that I can't think of right now. There is a clear semantic overlap: Such "countries" normally were sovereign states at some point in the past. On a list of "countries" most readers expect to find only sovereign states. That's why Hong Kong and Tibet are not on the corresponding template for Asia, for example. It makes no sense to change this template, which was clearly set up for sovereign states. But to avoid the confusion stemming from editors trying to add their non-sovereign "countries" to the template, it's better to rename it. No change to the template's actual text is necessary. The most natural way of saying "sovereign state", in almost every context, is still to say "country". Hans Adler 11:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I failed to understand that this is a package deal of move + heading change. Will have to think about this. Hans Adler 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many reliable sources did you find saying that the "Basque Country is a country" before making your decision to support this proposal? There are none (a couple of blogs, an internet post and a 'one man and his dog' self-published website). And what if there were; and it turned out that the Spanish government described the Basque Country as a country? Why would you choose to suppress that information? The whole point of Neutral point of view is to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Not just representing the view that Hans Adler, say, happens to agree with. Daicaregos (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, would you mind answering the questions please? 1. Did you find any reliable sources saying that the "Basque Country is a country"]? and 2. If the Spanish government described the Basque Country as a country, why would you choose to suppress that information? Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

On point (1), for what it's worth (I am not proposing that we include the Basque country here):

• "…Secondly, because the Basque Country, like Wales, is a country with a high valuation on community, the ministries and SPRI can pursue a policy of seeking to secure a future for indigenous private and co-operative industry, in accordance with democratic targets embodied in the economic strategy." (Graham Day, Regions, Nations and European Integration)
• "With respect to educational variables, the Basque case study is truly rich, in large part because it is a country within a country (Spain)." (Jasone Ceno, Towards Multilingual Education)
• "Data from a recent study show that the Basque Autonomous Community is a country with a very strong and very plural identity." (Ramón Zallo, Basques, Today)
• "The Basque country is a country within a country, or a nation within a state (the semantics are much debated, even today) with a language of its own: Euskera." (Spain '96: The Complete Guide including Mallorca, the Canary Islands and Morocco)

(And not the forget the Victor Hugo quote: "The Basque language is a country, almost a religion.")

On point (2), the Spanish government does not refer to the Basque Country as a country as far as I know. But, if the UK government called the constituent parts of the UK something other than "country", why would you "suppress" that information? (Such as your approach to the lead on the Northern Ireland article.) --RA (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my first question. Which led on to the second (still unanswered) "If the Spanish government described the Basque Country as a country, why would you choose to suppress that information?" As for my stance at Northern Ireland (though why you should ask here is known only unto you) it is that the primary WP:RS references define Northern Ireland as a country. While other descriptions exist (province appears to be a favoured description, but Ireland has four provinces and Northern Ireland is not one of them), they are too indistinct for the intro, but are fine within the body of the text, where they can be discussed in depth – and they do need detailed discussion. All (?) countries can be described in more than one way: nation; country; state; sovereign state; republic; principality; monarchy, but most use a primary descriptor in their lead sentence (USA an obvious exception: “federal constitutional republic”). Hope that clears it up for you. Please now be good enough to answer the second part of my question. Daicaregos (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied to your post on my talk. --RA (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean you're against the RM request? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

When I choose to !vote you'll know about it. At the moment I am listening to argument before deciding. You should try it sometime. Daicaregos (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

the argument is, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England are not equal to proper countries on the list like France, Germany and the United Kingdom. It would be misleading and confusing to place them all in line as equals when they quite clearly are not. For many people when they think of the word country they think of sovereign states. They dont think of every entity in the world that someone has decided to call a country. By rights we do not even need to rename this template, but it is a solution that will bring about stability quicker and be in line with the solutions taken on other articles to deal with this very same annoying little problem. Which strangely usually seems to come up by someone from Wales or Scotland demanding their inclusion, and most of the time ive seen it happen the one to raise it has been editors who feel these countries should be fully independent which of course would give them the right to appear in these lists and templates. A complete coincidence i am sure but a strange trend which can not be ignored. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Daicaregos and BritishWatcher, please could we try to keep the conversation on the topic at hand without resorting to sarcasm, political arguments and borderline personal attacks? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, will wait for close of this before commenting again here. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright Dai, I can wait. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support for clarity and consistency, as the term "country" has alternative definitions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support so to clear up any doubts about which country is included & which is excluded. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support - I don't really think this is necessary, as the template is fine as it is, but this move would make the list crystal clear and potentially avoid argument and edit wars.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, agreeing with Amakuru. This should be a listing of sovereign, independent states; if this rename helps avoid disputes about whether the Basque Country is a country and whether Northern Ireland is one, it's a good thing. Ucucha 23:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support upon reconsideration "country" can be easily misunderstood in this context (e.g. Scotland). --Born2cycle (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose. Don't see a compelling reason to go against WP:COMMONNAME, a naming criteria that applies to all articles in Wikipedia (except when there is a good reason to make an exception - I don't see one here). Yes, "country", like many words, has multiple uses and meanings, but it's quite clear that the sovereign state meaning is intended in this context.

  There are better ways to resolve disputes like this than violating important naming criteria. Like an RFC, or ANI if disruptive behavior does not stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Are you aware that we are discussing a change of the template's internal name rather than anything visible to readers? Hans Adler 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I had misunderstood the proposal. It wasn't made clear enough that it's a package deal consisting of a move and a change of heading. With this knowledge I actually agree with your pre-mind-change opinion now. Hans Adler 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, in response (not necessarily favorable) to a request by Born2cycle; WP:COMMONNAME doesn't necessarily apply when the common name is misleading. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Arthur. I agree in general but just don't see how "country" is misleading in this case. I can see how someone might intentionally misinterpret it to suit his or her POV, but that's disruptive behavior that should be addressed directly, not by capitulating like this.

    Security bars on the windows of homes might be required for protection against vandals in some neighborhoods, but we try to avoid allowing neighborhoods from getting to that point for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that the bars are an unsightly compromise and do not address the root problem, but sometimes it's the only practical choice. I don't see that we're at that point here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    • Two things: 1. WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to template names. Obviously not. Very obviously not. 2. I agree with your opinion that the problem is intentional misunderstandings by nationalist POV pushers. I don't think that's a good reason not to rename this template, since it will happen in the interest of full clarity. While the disruptive nationalists have a chance to hide behind something that masquerades as a rational argument we are not going to get them blocked. The situation will change if they persist after the renaming. Hans Adler 17:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC) See my clarification below. Hans Adler 09:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans, please strike the above. You have been provided with evidence as to the definition of a country from various sources. I find it incredible that you are unable to handle a sensible discussion without name calling. --Snowded ^TALK 18:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

AGF is not a suicide pact. Hans Adler 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but it is a requirement, No editor has exhibited any behaviour or made any statement which justifies your nonsensical attack. If you think your comments are justified then please specify which editors you are referring to and provide diffs.to support your alternatives. If you can't do that strike, and if you have any integrity, apologise. --Snowded ^TALK 19:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good try. If I named anyone that would be improper because AGF holds for every single editor. Every single editor who has a Welsh flag on their user page and tries to push Wales into a context that is obviously reserved to sovereign countries has plausible deniability on their side and may in fact suffer from an inability to understand the nuances of what "country" means in different contexts. That does not mean that anyone is obliged to overlook the general pattern or assume collective good faith. I have seen a lot of such editors recently, and I am currently acting under the hypothesis that they are not all sockpuppets of each other. Hans Adler 19:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Snowded is still concerned: I am explicitly not accusing any particular individual editor of bad faith. I am addressing the problem that a relatively large number of editors is specifically trying to push Wales into one of several contexts that are reserved to sovereign states and appears not to understand that that's what most people mean by "country" outside specific contexts such as Commonwealth sports events or specifically the constituent parts of the UK. (Even then it's not without problems, as the example of Northern Ireland clearly shows. It is uncontroversially "one of the four constituent countries of the UK", but saying it is a "country" is extremely contentious.) For every single one of them I am assuming good faith. However, I find it very hard to assume good faith for all of them collectively, and the fact that this only happens with Wales is astonishing. But my real point, which maybe got a bit obscured, is that regardless of intentions this behaviour is disruptive and must stop. The move request is an attempt to prevent this behaviour for this specific template. Hans Adler 09:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Snowded remains concerned to be honest Hans. On the issue of fact a lot of work was put in by a lot of editors, with mediation looking at the evidence and the use of country to describe Wales, England & Scotland is valid and common (not just in the UK by the way, also the White House and others). Aside from the content issue I monitor most of these pages and I am not aware of any large number of Welsh editors engaged, just a few. So its difficult to believe your remarks were not targeted at them. Phrases like "intentional misunderstandings by nationalist POV pushers" and "disruptive nationalists have a chance to hide behind something that masquerades as a rational argument we are not going to get them blocked" are unacceptable if applied to editors who are addressing content issues in accordance with WIkipedia rules. You can disagree with them but you should not blast our accusations such as these. I would like your assurance that you are not applying those comments to any editor engaged in this discussion. If you are not prepared to give that assurance then you should provide diffs to support the accusations. If you want to strike the whole thing that is fine and you can strike my comments at the same time. --Snowded ^TALK 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The other cases were recent and had nothing to do with templates. I apologise for not having made this clear enough from the beginning. On the other hand I am not going to set up explicit pointers between the two problems as a service to Welsh nationalists. Sorry. This thing just had the misfortune to come up at a time when I was very unhappy about the lack of reason and adequate prioritisation between encyclopedicity and national pride that certain editors had persistently been showing elsewhere. Since you did not know this you must obviously have felt that I was unusually grumpy for no good reason. Hans Adler 18:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support This subject comes up from time to time on various articles. If the intent of an article is only cover sovereign states then that is what it should say. Born2Cycle, that is an over the top reaction and your metaphor a clear failure to assume good faith. I can't see any disruptive behaviour above --Snowded ^TALK 17:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support Consistency across the project is key. And the definition of country, in the political sense, is clear on the project. Outback the koala (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I don't like the idea of indirectly legitimising the spurious arguments or the approach to RS that I have seen (both here and in my related experience given below). And I don't think the correct way to address these issues is to "cut them off at the pass", so to speak, by swapping vocabulary. However, since on face value the proposal is merely a change of words, there is no reason to oppose.

  (The following is mainly a comment on my experience of this issue.) I encountered this issue on Northern Ireland where some vocal contributors to this debate are also vocal (and - recurrently - so am I). It is particularly problematic there because other RS contradict the vocabulary used (more so in the past), use other terms (including the UK govt.) and those that discuss the question of what Northern Ireland is explain that there is no definitive answer. The issue is mixed up with the nationalist politics of Great Britain (particularly Scotland and Wales from what I can see). These are politics that I am personally supportive of but which appear to have clouded the judgement of otherwise rational contributors to this project. A recurring theme is the basing of assertions on a limited set of favourable sources, an approach that can be summed up as being, Sources exist to support view X therefore it doesn't matter what other sources say. That approach to sources is the very opposite of what is meant on Wikipedia by an NPOV. On this matter it also shows a distinct disregard for the manner in which readers may interpret the words we used. On Northern Ireland too, I find the approach to consensus on this matter particularly grating, which is seemingly interpreted as a kind of veto rather than something to be entered into in a spirit of collaboration. --RA (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support A very inexpensive way of avoiding conflict. If the template's called 'country', then it looks like Scotland, Wales and England should be added, but this is not the case if it says 'sovereign state'. In the United Kingdom (or elsewhere, frankly) it is not controversial or nationalistic to call England, Scotland and Wales 'countries' ... the usage pre-dates the concept of sovereign state and is as alive as ever. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with "country" being too ambiguous in this context. Nightw 05:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support – with the poviso that the template's heading is changed to 'Sovereign states of Europe' to reflect the page move. Daicaregos (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not what this discussion is about. Unless a lot of editors have been confused, we have a strong consensus for renaming the template without changing its heading. If you want the heading changed, you will have to start a separate discussion and find a consensus for that. Since that will be visible in article space there are completely different things to be considered, such as cross-article/cross-template consistency. Hans Adler 11:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The heading of this section says "It has been proposed in this section that Template:Countries of Europe be renamed and moved." Is there some aspect of the word "renamed" that I am missing? --Snowded ^TALK 11:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • It also has a reference to our "article title policy", which is explicitly only about article titles and clearly does not make much sense for templates. This is just the standard wording of Template:movereq, which is tailored primarily to articles. Many templates don't even have title-like headings. I am not aware of any guidelines that address template headings directly. The closest to an applicable guideline seems to be WP:LAYOUT, and it certainly doesn't say that a template's heading, if it has one, must in any way be correlated to its file name. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that in some areas we have many (differently named) templates that all have the same heading.

      But now that I have re-read BritishWatcher's proposal more closely, he does make arguments that imply he wants to change the heading as well. So it appears it's me who was confused. Obviously now some of my arguments above no longer apply. With this new knowledge I tend to agree with Born2cycle's initial !vote. I certainly don't want to support cleansing "country" with its natural meaning as a short way of referring to sovereign states from the content part of the encyclopedia. I will have to think about how this affects my !vote. Thanks! Hans Adler 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

      • Seems like a pointless fight to me ... why annoy and confuse people when we can avoid it by being precise? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

    • The section heading is to be moved, along with the article title itself. If a consensus is reached, of course. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support to avoid further conflictsPenom (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portions of countries

Similar to how things are done on Template:Countries of Africa, perhaps the portions of multicontinental countries that are in Europe should be specifically linked? So we would have "France (Metropolitan)", "Russia (European)" and "Turkey (East Thrace)"? Though, come to think of it, I'm pretty sure we don't have specific articles for European Spain, European Italy, and European Portugal... hrm. Though, worth a thought for the major cases of France, Russia, and Turkey. --Golbez (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tricky. There could be a lot of problems stemming from that. European Georgia? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Tricky indeed. :P It could be looked at if there is a substantial disconnect between the two. European Georgia and Asian Georgia are obviously part of the same quite small mass, whereas Metropolitan France and the rest are not; Thrace is obviously separate from Asia Minor; and European Russia, while part of the same mass as Siberia, is clearly delineated both geographically and culturally. Conversely, the parts of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy that are not in Europe are very small portions thereof (Though, due to the unexpected aspect of European countries being in Africa, they are mentioned in the African template, but the 'main' portions need not be specifically mentioned here). --Golbez (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Svalbard

It appears to me that Svalbard is considered an integral part of Norway, and thus shouldn't be set apart as a dependency. --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

No complaints, going to edit it. --Golbez (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this before. Svalbard's an interesting legal area. While Norway claims Svalbard is fully a part of Europe, the other signatories of the Svalbard treaty have access and rights which lay out of Norway's jurisdiction. This is especially true with the rights to the Svalbard continental shelf. That's why I had it placed as an "other territory", aiming for a fairly inclusive criteria (this template is for navigation and not for politics etc.), and places like the CIA list it as a dependency. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

True, but according to Svalbard Treaty, it makes it plainly clear that the island is part - not owned by, but part - of Norway. There are restrictions upon it per treaty, but that happens from time to time. Maybe the problem is combining 'dependencies' with 'other territories', since Svalbard and Aland aren't quite the same as the other territories mentioned. --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The combination was an (misguided?) attempt to simplify it. I wouldn't know how to exactly categorise it otherwise, and I doubt there's actually a term for whatever situation it is in. Dependent territory is a rather meaningless term in itself I suppose. Aland and Svalbard aren't easy to put together anyway, while Svalbard has rights for other states not in the power of Norway, Aland has rights for itself not in the power of Finland. Do we ignore the CIA source? Another category (international treaty)? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We can ignore a source when it is demonstrably wrong; if Svalbard is fundamentally part of Norway then it cannot possibly be a territory thereof. And it appears that it is, it's just that uses are limited via treaty (which is not unusual; there is, IIRC, a railroad that runs between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad through other countries. The land belongs to those other countries but they have treatied to allow Russian access; the Baikonur cosmodrome is another possible example; etc). I wouldn't mind throwing in Svalbard and Aland as 'other areas' (territories was a poor choice, considering. :P) --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I personally feel that Svalbard is in a far more unusual position than, say, Finnmark. It's not part of the usual administrative structure of Norway, which is a count against it being fundamentally a part of it. For example, New Caledonia and French Polynesia etc., fundamentally a part of France, are often listed as dependencies. The Faroes and Greenland are fundamentally a part of Denmark too. However, these are often listed as dependencies. I don't like to put too much weight into the term 'territory', for me it just means a piece of land. Perhaps 'other areas' with a hidden note saying any additions must be discussed? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I always understood French Polynesia and New Caledonia as being possessions, not part, of France. But, like many things when it comes to this, it's more complicated than that. Why can't you keep things simple, France? Sigh. Maybe it's the whole 'country vs. kingdom' thing? Aruba isn't part of the Netherlands, but it's part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands; Greenland isn't part of Denmark, but it's part of the Kingdom of Denmark; maybe Svalbard isn't part of Norway, but it's part of the greater sphere? (Though it is part of Norway? :)) To be quite honest now I'm fine with putting Svalbard back, because this whole thing is starting to confuse me. :P --Golbez (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Legal status is never as simple as you want it to be. The whole country vs kingdom thing for example, is a semantic distinction made up by wikipedia editors. We have a state made up of multiple parts. One of the parts has no ready unique identification, and thus is granted the same name as the state (situation for Netherlands and Denmark). The Kingdom of the Netherlands is called the Netherlands in shorthand, ditto with Kingdom of Denmark/Denmark. Kingdom of Norway? Who knows. Put it back in where it was? The other territories there all differ in their own way :/ Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

England, Scotland and Wales

This template has been re-named Countries of Europe, contrary to the Requested Move decision of 23 October 2010 (above), with no further discussion. If the template is to be called Countries of Europe, it should list all the countries of Europe, per WP:NPOV. I propose to add England, Scotland and Wales to the list. Any objections? Daicaregos (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I object, yes. First of all, to the characterization that this is demanded by NPOV. Maybe by factualness, but it has nothing to do with POV. Secondly, the name of the template doesn't really matter, since the description of the template is still the same. It could be renamed Template:kittens and not have cats in it. It's obvious what the template is aiming for, so instead of adding things that go against that, the effort should be focused on removing any reasonable ambiguity. "Reasonable" being the operative word. --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable? Reasonable would be a template named 'Template:Countries of Europe' showing all the countries of Europe, rather than just some of them. Not including England, Scotland and Wales here is a demonstrating a POV that they are not countries. You seem to think this has nothing to do with POV; it has. Neutral point of view says: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. While it may be obvious to you what the template is aiming for, it may not be obvious to others. England, Scotland and Wales are all verified as countries by reliable sources. They should be included on this template. Daicaregos (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The way I see it, the only discussion that can be had is "What should the template be named", because there's no way the constituent countries are getting added to it. Instead of taking advantage of this move that you disagree with (and you very much are doing that, this is an opportunity to you, otherwise why not simply undo the move?), you could either undo it, or bring the matter of the renaming up. Anything else is simply not happening. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The UK isn't the only country whose subdivisions are also called "countries". The Kingdom of the Netherlands is composed of four "countries". The same terminology is sometimes also used for the Kingdom of Denmark, though not consistently. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wrote that before you changed your comment and removed the sentence that "the UK is the only nation-state that uses the terminology of "country" for its parts". SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand by it. The sovereign nation in these templates is "The Netherlands". Yes, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has four constituent countries, but we often only refer to one, The Netherlands, in these lists. The rest are considered dependencies. It would be an equivalent situation if we listed "United Kingdom" and "Kingdom of the Netherlands", or "England" and "The Netherlands", but as it is the situation is mixed. --Golbez (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's true that Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are often considered dependencies of the Netherlands, though officially they are constituent countries within the Kingdom alongside the Netherlands. Confusingly, "Netherlands" is also the short-form name of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

For information - the change seems to have been made in this edit, last year, by User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Though the title of the template is "Countries of Europe", the three subgroups are "Sovereign states", "States with limited recognition" and "Dependent territories". E,S,W&NI fit in none of these categories. If you think this template should contain all entities called "countries", would you include the Basque Country too? What about the states of Germany, called "Länder" in German, also literally meaning "countries"? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the move was to make this one match the other continent country templates. Most were named "Countries of X" and (in part because of WP:Local Consensus) thease outliers should not have differed unless there was some reasion for them to, and there wasn't. The move can not simply be reverted at this point, this has been the title for almost a year. If you want to rename this, you could start an mass RM for all of the continent country templates.

More importantly there are differing definitions of "country", and to quote Apteva "templates do not need to be as precisely named as articles - no one ever sees the name of the template - it could just as well use a random number for the name and shorter names are easier to use". The actual title is a mere technical tool met for ease of use by editors. The reader never sees it, it doesn't matter except for its ease of use by editors.

What does matter is the header, and the headers of all these continent navboxes (except the Antarctic one) say "Countries and territories of X". I wouldn't go so far as to call this an NPOV volition, but it is imprecise. If I remember correctly, the headers used to say "Sovereign states and dependent territories in X". I don't know why that was changed, but the parent article's titles use that wording. Unless there's some reason for for these navboxes headers to differ from their parent article's titles that's the probably the header we should use. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Golbez: I didn't revert the move because it was made so long ago. Implying I have used underhand methods or devious motives is incorrect, unnecessary and quite disgraceful. Daicaregos (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@ SiBr I do not propose including Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten on this template as they are not in Europe. I would prefer to see Netherlands replace Netherlands. Neither Basque Country nor the German Länder are commonly known as countries; England, Scotland and Wales are.

I have no view on the Template title. However, the template appears on articles as Countries and dependencies of Europe, which is what it should list. England, Scotland and Wales are verifiably countries and they are in Europe. As such, they should be on a list purporting to show Countries and dependencies of Europe. Daicaregos (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Minni ritchi is verifiably a type of bark, but it doesn't appear in this types of barking list. Words have multiple meanings. Our countries and dependent territories of Europe list was, at any rate, moved to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe (along with all the other templates with it), precisely because of this semantic squabble. CMD (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And now the List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe lists what it purports to list, which improves the encyclopaedic content of Wikipedia. Unless I misunderstood you, you seem to suggest it shouldn't; a bizarre position to take. The OED defines 'country' as: 3. The territory or land of a nation; usually an independent state, or a region once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions, or historical memories, as England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the United Kingdom, etc. This is the precisely the context of 'country' used in this template. A template appearing on articles as Countries and dependencies of Europe should include England, Scotland and Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the OED, but under that definition, the Basque country and most of Germany would qualify. Much of Europe for that matter. CMD (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could read country instead. As I said above, neither Basque Country nor the German Länder are commonly known as countries; England, Scotland and Wales are. Daicaregos (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The article which mentions the German states, French regions, and British overseas territories, and which notes the term can sometimes be used only in reference to states? Yes, I've read it. Quite frankly, Basque Country, having the word country in it, seems a prime candidate for some sort of 'country status', if such a thing was to come up. The page you linked also mentions Northern Ireland, which is another issue this template really shouldn't have to deal with. CMD (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Bit of selective quoting there. If you want to restrict the template to Sovereign states and dependencies of Europe, then the template needs to be called that. England, Scotland and Wales are defined by numerous reliable sources as countries (as I'm sure you know). If Basque country, or any other place in Europe is defined similarly, by similar quality sources, it should be included too (although I don't believe it is). In other words, anywhere in Europe that is verifiably a country or dependency in Europe should be on a list, or template, of European countries. England, Scotland and Wales are, and should, therefore, be included on this template. Daicaregos (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

"I didn't revert the move because it was made so long ago. Implying I have used underhand methods or devious motives is incorrect, unnecessary and quite disgraceful." I apologize because I thought the move was recent, not so long ago. That said, I still have a bitter taste in my mouth from you claiming that this was required under NPOV, implying that people who disagree with you are somehow biased against Wales. That was the wrong hill to fight for. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Golbez. Thank you. As to citing WP:NPOV, I did not intend to imply that people who disagree with me are biased against Wales. I am sorry you inferred that. The part of NPOV relevant here has been quoted above. It is not directed at anyone in particular, but is a policy we must all follow. Daicaregos (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@Daicaregos: I didn't say Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten should be added to this template; I replied to Golbez who claimed that "the UK is the only nation-state that uses the terminology of "country" for its parts". I think that {{Countries of Europe}} shoudn't include the UK's constituent countries, and that {{Countries of North America}} shouldn't include the Dutch Caribbean constituent countries either if they weren't so widely viewed as dependencies of the Netherlands.

@Emmette Hernandez Coleman: If "Template:Countries of Europe" is moved back to "Template:Sovereign states of Europe" and "Template:Countries of Europe" is kept as a redirect, pages using "Template:Countries of Europe" will still display the contents of "Template:Sovereign states of Europe"; see WP:Template redirects. Or have I misunderstood your reasoning behind the sentence "The move can not simply be reverted at this point, this has been the title for almost a year"? SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@SiBr4. Sorry, I misunderstood. Daicaregos (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, editors are contending that England, Scotland and Wales should not be included on this template because they are not sovereign states or dependencies, which, of course, they are not. But this template does not purport to list sovereign states and dependencies. Btw, please note that the title, as it displays on articles (Countries and dependencies of Europe), Wikilinks to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, contrary the Manual of Style/Linking guideline. Currently, this template purports to list the Countries and dependencies of Europe. Again, AFAICT, no-one is contending that England, Scotland and Wales are not countries, or that they aren't in Europe. Consequently, a template purporting to list the Countries and dependencies of Europe should include them, per the “nonnegotiable” policy, NPOV, quoted above. If editors want to change the way the template displays its title on articles to reflect its content, please say that. But some changes need to be made. My preference is to keep its title (as it displays on articles) as Countries and dependencies of Europe and add the countries England, Scotland and Wales. Daicaregos (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not the British constituent parts are countries depends on your definition of a "country". IMO, England, Scotland and Wales are not countries (using the term to refer to a sovereign state), though they may arguably be countries in a non-political sense. The template doesn't need to be moved as the template's name is not visible to readers, though it may help to change the title above the navbox back to "Sovereign states and dependent territories of Europe" for clarity. Note that while the template was moved to "Template:Countries of Europe" in February 2013, the title was changed to "Countries and dependencies of Europe" only in September with this edit by Lfdder. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no particular need to change the title or contents of this template, nor any benefit to the reader in doing so. There is nothing wrong with using the word "country" to mean sovereign state - it is one of the multiple standard meanings of the word. The phrase "sovereign state" is subject to exactly the same argument but on a larger scale (as every US state is formally sovereign). There are plenty of "countries" out there in Europe alone that also would need to be included by the same argument. The argument for the change - the same that has been made many times before - conflates two separate meanings of the word and is based on a POV that holds that being called a "country" gives the UK countries equal status to states such as France, Germany or the United States. Kahastok talk 18:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Governments, the ISO and numerous other reliable sources define, and refer to, England Scotland and Wales as countries. These are significant views and must be represented here. Editor opinion as to whether somewhere is a country or not is irrelevant. 'Country' and 'sovereign state' are not synonymous. I reiterate, Neutral point of view says: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. The NPOV policy is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. Daicaregos (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

So why aren't you? Your proposal that we suggest that Wales and France are equivalent in status - when they patently are not - is clearly non-neutral.

While "country" and "sovereign state" are not always synonymous, there certainly is a meaning of the word "country" that is the same thing as what you refer to as a "sovereign state". The fact that your argument relies on an insistence that words can only have one meaning demonstrates how flawed it is. Kahastok talk 16:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying countries are equal. That is not relevant. Please don't try to misrepresent me. Sovereign states are not necessarily 'equal'. Vatican City is not 'equal' to China and Monaco is not 'equal' to USA. Nevertheless, reliable sources define each of them as sovereign states ... and countries. But this template does not purport to show sovereign states. It purports to show countries. Not a selection of countries; countries. Some may be sovereign states and countries. Others countries, but not sovereign states. The fact that your argument relies on an insistence that words can only have one meaning demonstrates how flawed it is. Daicaregos (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

If England, Scotland and Wales are countries for this purpose, then so is the other constituent country of the UK - Northern Ireland. The Clyde Valley (talk)

Fine as it (i.e. referring to "countries" with no mention of England, Scotland and Wales). Like Kahastok says, the argument for their inclusion is based on the idea that words have one and only one meaning.

Including them, too, would begin a parade of horribles. Is all of Ireland a country, for example? I cannot find a single source that says it is not and plenty that say it is. But it's not the kind of country we mean here. --Tóraí (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Republic of Crimea

Given the recents events in Crimea, should the Republic of Crimea article be listed with the states with limited recognition?

--Jean Po (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the discussion at Talk:List of states with limited recognition, Crimea may declare independence after the referendum next week, but hasn't done so yet. It's best to wait until it's clear whether Crimea will actually become independent before prematurely adding it to every single list of countries. SiBr₄ (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Secession has been voted. Jean Po (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And the vote specifically mentioned waiting for the results of the referendum. CMD (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea has now been annexed by Russia, making the whole discussion moot. Jean Po (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2015

Put the dependencies of Portugal (Madiera and the Azores), Spain (Canary Islands) 108.49.197.44 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Madiera and the Azores are not dependencies, but Autonomous Regions of Portugal
The Canaries are just one of the 17 Autonomous communities of Spain - Arjayay (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, neither Madeira nor the Canaries are geographically close to Europe (they're just to the west of the African mainland). SiBr₄ (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Israel

Israel shares many cultural links with Europe. Should it be included on this template?Grootwoord (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This template isn't about country's with cultural links, it's about physically being a part of the continent. - SantiLak (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not according to the template it's not, as it specifically includes countries "entirely in Asia with cultural links to Europe". Armenia, Cyprus, and possibly Malta are not geologically within Europe. --Golbez (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And the only one that isn't geologically in Europe per se is Armenia, is very close to the border of that is considered geologically Europe. My opinion is that Israel shouldn't be included. - SantiLak (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I dunno, including Armenia really seems to open the door to Israel. Of course, to do so would require some healthy corroboration from articles like Europe, so the discussion really belongs there, not here. --Golbez (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)