![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
As »pesky Slovene« (this goes to Shallot :--) (see MediaWiki_talk:SFRY)) I would like to change current designation of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in this footer to (at least) Republic of Macedonia - since the article itself has such a name and it is also shorter. Any objections? -- XJamRastafire 11:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jakob Stevo 22:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
The official name is FYR Macedonia specifically for NPOV reasons, to avoid upsetting Greece who do not want an apparant claim to parts of Macedonia that are within its boundaries. CheeseDreams 00:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Macedonia" links to Republic of Macedonia, inevitably causing confusion with Macedonia proper. Who can explain this discrepancy?-- Theathenae 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)
The templates now say R. Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. This discussion has been done to death and back on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. We may have to go back to FYR Macedonia if any of the other Macedonias become republics, which seems unlikely now. -- GunnarRene 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If we include Turkey and Georgia because of those bits of their territory that's in Europe, should we also include Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan? All these corner cases are a bit unwieldy... -- Shallot 20:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd say we should follow the country list at Europe, so yes to Turkey, no to Georgia etc. Matthewmayer 00:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Europe mentions three additional countries after the main list, so we might as well add them here. -- User:Docu
User:Wik has been removing the following countries from the list: Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Portions of these countries lie in Europe, in the same way that a portion of Turkey lies in Europe, but Wik is not removing Turkey, so his removal of these other countries is not consequential to his own criteria. Perhaps he should explain his reverts in the summary, instead of using the vacuous 'rv' or the childish 'rv moron'. -- Cantus 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kazakhstan, at least, is pretty ridiculous. The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is only in Europe in an utterly marginal way. I'm pretty dubious about Azerbaijan, too. Not sure about Georgia. How about Cyprus, which joins the EU on Saturday? john 01:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that Georgia and Kazakhstan should be put in this MediaWiki. WhisperToMe 05:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Location lists as partially located in Europe: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey, but not Cyprus nor Georgia. List all four or none? Pædia | talk 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Russia clearly should be listed as part of Europe. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan should not. So far as I can tell, only insignificant corners of them can be considered to be in Europe. Georgia probably should not, either. Turkey has a small but significant part that is clearly in Europe (unlike Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have parts in Europe based around vaguely defined borders in the east), and likes to consider itself a European country. Cyprus is clearly not geographically in Europe, but it is a member of the EU. john 17:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Georgia is fine to not be. On the other hand, Europe is frequently considered a cultural entity. As largely Christian countries, Georgia and Armenia (and Cyprus) would probably be considered to be more European than Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, even though they're geographically in Asia. At any rate, The border of Europe at the Dardanelles was the original defining feature of Europe. There's water, it's easy to determine. The borders of Europe along the Caucasus and the Urals are rather more difficult to figure out. The eastern Caucasus kind of peter out, and it's pretty arguable that Baku is on the southern side. And saying that part of Kazakhstan is in Europe is completely arbitrary - the Ural mountains peter out north of the Kazakh border. On the other hand, Istanbul is a European city by any definition, and Russia has been a major European power since the 18th century. john 00:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Paedia. I don't really have the energy to argue about this stuff anymore, although I'm glad you're willing to actually discuss this stuff, instead of just reverting. To be honest with you, I have no idea what Template:Europe and its equivalents are for. My only real feeling is that only one of these should be listed at the bottom of any particular country page, and as such, we should have to decide on one region for each country to be in. By that standard, I'd say only Russia of the various questionable cases ought to go in Europe, and the rest should go in Middle East or Central Asia. But whatever. I don't see how these things are especially useful at all. Why do we need a table at the bottom of every country page linking it to every other country on the same continent with it? Why is this useful? And that's all I'll say on the subject for now. Maybe if I get up the energy for a fight at some time in the future, I'll just list all these pages on VfD. Until then, do what you like - obviously on the factual question of what countries geographically have bits in Europe, you are right, I just question the usefulness of this whole endeavor. john 06:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd include Cyprus and Turkey and pretty much every country in the EU. Also countries that take part in the Eurovision Songcontest should be considered. Kazachstan and Azerbijan are to far away. In mopst geography sources I know of they are seen as part of Asia. -- MGM 07:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I was under the opinion that Europe ended at the Bosphorus and Dardanels, only including Turkey due to the bit near Constantinople. CheeseDreams 00:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why does this article include the European Union flag? -- Gutza 13:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is NOT the flag of Europe. It is not a flag for Switzerland, Monaco, The Isle of Man, Russia, The Ukraine, etc. in any way whatsoever. CheeseDreams 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It IS the flag of Europe. Switzerland, Monaco, Russia, and The Ukraine, are all members of the Council of Europe and consequently it is utterly false and nonsense to say that is not a flag for them "in any way whatsoever." Parmaestro 13:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comparing the List of dependent territories one might wonder which principle guides if a territory is listed as a dependency or not.
/ Tuomas 01:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I add Åland – tentatively. / Tuomas 16:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The key phrase (the opening decission, actually) of the LoN's arbitration on Åland actually is
...which is not the same as "The Åland Islands are recognised to belong to Finland". The islands's autonomy is guaranteed by international treaties, which Finland has followed rather minutiously, like their de-militarized status, which has not been exactly as minutiously respected. Which is the criterion used for inclusion/exclusion? By the way; Nice to see you've found the talk page, Wik! / Tuomas 13:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I have added Svalbard again. There seems to be consensus it should be included. Its article states that it is a dependency, and that it lies "north of mainland Europe". By convention, it is included as part of Europe. If there are any objections, please put them here. Warofdreams 15:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
It's very odd to regard Svalbard and Jan Mayen as dependencies. Jan Mayen Is. is a to be considered a part of Nordland county, and Longyearbyen municipality as well as the rest of Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway. When it is a part of the kingdom it cannot be a dependency. It will be as to regard Northern Ireland a dependency of the United Kingdom, or to claim that Jersey and Guernsey as independent countries. Please begin to listen to the natives, or Wikipedia will only show what the majority of foreigners believe about different topics! Jakro64 20:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why is Cantus constantly reverting all these pages, without making a single comment here? Even Wik has participated in the talk page discussions. john 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
You made one comment, five days ago, and have not responded to any of the subsequent discussion of that topic. john 19:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
You've also reverted 7 times in the last 24 hours. john 20:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Cantus: After reviewing the edits, I happen to find myself mildly agreeing with your view (without prejudice to your rivals). Summarize your arguments here, and provide a good layout (using asterisks and daggers -- no superscript numerical footnotes please), and I shall support you. -- Kaihsu 20:05, 2004 May 5 (UTC) (admin)
Don't these media wiki continent type tables need to be mutually exclusive? That is to say, Kazakhstan shouldn't be listed here because it is in Template:Central Asia. What we ought to do is divide up all countries and dependent territories into mutually exclusive groups, and then just stick to that. john 20:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Just to add - doing this would perhaps be, in some sense, POV. In that case, all of these tables are POV, and should be removed. john 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
My point is that they're useless unless you make them mutually exclusive, because the point of these pages is to use them as a footer on country page articles. Since you generally only have one of these per country page, you have to decide which one each country is going to go on. These pages are not themselves articles, and only have value as far as they are a useful tool on the individual country pages. What's the point of listing Mongolia on MediaWiki:Central Asia, if we don't have a {{msg:Central Asia}} on the Mongolia page? john 20:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I'm just going to advocate deleting the whole mess. What useful purpose is served by these pages? john 20:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Can an admin please tweak the font sizes? I can't see the list of dependencies clearly. Thanks. ✑whkoh | ✖ 04:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
This may be a minor issue, but there are differing opinions about how to list. I propose a compromise to list as "[[Vatican City|Holy See]]" or "[[Holy See]] ([[Vatican City]])".
CIA - The World Factbook -- FAQs states:
P æ dia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Each poll question must be voted by a minimum of 15 users. 70% of support is required for a position to be declared a winner (or 30% or less to be declared a loser). Once a position is declared a winner, the appropiate change must be made to the article.
Please vote using this format: #~~~ - Optional comments.
Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked 'Discussion'.
Votes: 89
Support: 50.6%
Support
Oppose
No vote
Comments
I've never thought of Kazakhstan as a European country. blankfaze | •-• 16:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Whitaker's Almanack - LIST ALL WEBLINKS includes a link to the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK, that states:
P æ dia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)
The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is insignificant both in size, and as to being a part of Europe. It is on the most undefined part of the border of Europe, and has played no role whatsoever in the history of Europe. john k 06:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Kazakhstan has much more european territory than Turkey - both in sq.km. and in % of the whole Kazakhstan. So in geography terms Kazakhstan is more european than Turkey. Also maybe even Russia has less european territory in % of whole Russia. Azerbaidjan is also undisputably consideren european (according to the pool here) and it has much less european territory in both sq.km. and %. Not to mention Cyprus. Alinor 11:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Urals thing is a technicality. There's no way Kazakhstan is in Europe. I would not agree to the UK being included in category: South America just because it has control of the Falklands/Malvinas. Turkey plays in the European Championship, dude, has a long history of involvement in European history (not least of which is that it is the site of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, very much a European invention), and is a candidate nation for the European Union. Dr Zen 11:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a brilliant suggestion, if I do say so myself, about how to resolve this dispute. Since the definition of the eastern border of Europe is basically an invention, replace it with another definition that is much clearer, viz.: Between the Black Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the border separating Europe and Asia shall be the line of longitude at 40 degrees east. At a single stroke, this will make it clear that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan are geographically in Asia, ending the dispute there. (We can still consider them "culturally" as part of Europe, just as Cyprus is considered, even though it is indisputably in Asia.) Forty east slices only a tiny, tiny bit of Ukraine off to Asia, leaving the rest in Europe. What does it matter to Russia where exactly on the vast steppes the border of Europe and Asia is, especially considering that Moscow will remain in Europe? Teemu Leisti 23:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
comment to Pidgeot: The template is not exlusionatory. Kazakhstan, like Russia, Turkey, etc. can stay both in Asia and in Europe templates. Do you think that Turkey or Russia should be removed, becouse the majority of their territory is in Asia? Alinor 08:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This poll is absolutely ridiculous. If we agreed on Turkey and Russia, Kazakhstan should be in too. The border between Europe and Asia is clear and it's also perfectly clear that a large part of Kazakhstan lies in Europe. Kazakhstan is also a member of some European organisations, for example UEFA. In European Championship's Qualifiers Kazakhstan national football team plays in the same group as Ukraine, Greece, Denmark which are obviously European countries. I find denying that Kazakhstan is an european nation to be absolutely disrespectful to the people of Kazakhstan. Grue 10:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 93
Support: 60%
Support
Oppose
Comments
An Armenian would call themself a European. It is a huge insult to Armenians to call Turkey and Azerbaijan "European" when by blood and location they are not. It's also ironic that formerly Armenian territory is now part of both Turkey and Azerbaijan and you can them european. Personally, I'm disgusted in everyone that voted "oppose" for their short-sightedness on the issue. - G 10:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
As with Cyprus, I think that if the country is a member of a major European group, then you have to include it. blankfaze | •• 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Europe should be a page on the continent and not membership states in all organisations with Europe in its name. Armenia comes closer than Cyprus however. Moravice
I'd say Cyprus comes much closer. As far as European organizations go, the EU is far more important than the Council of Europe. john k 06:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It would be look very odd to have Georgia and Azerbaijan without Armenia too. Dmn 07:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Australia has a far more European culture than any of those three. Perhaps we should include it in Europe? Dr Zen 11:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If anybody looks up Armenia in the dictionary, the definition would be; an ancient country in West Asia that's now divided between Armenia, Turkey, and Iran. That definition of Armenia in the dictionary proves to everyone, that Armenia is not in Europe.-- Gramaic 19:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moosh Asks "Why Azerbaijan?" Answer: A small part of northern Azerbaijan lies north of the Caucasus, hence part of the country is "in Europe" Tomer TALK 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
As I do not know if I have the right to vote here in en.wikipedia, I give only a comment: In my opinion the Kuma-Manych Depression and not the Kaukasus is the geographic boundary of Europe. So, neither Armenia, nor Georgia or Azerbaijan would be part of Europe. I am not sure about Kazakhstan, but the small part of this country situated west of the Ural river seems to be insignificant, compared to the European part of Russia or Turkey ( Istanbul!). This area is thinly populated, the biggest settlements are Oral and Atyrau - the center of the later is on the east bank of Ural river. -- Franz Xaver 15:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 46
Support: 39.1%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Not all Europe uses this flag, i.e.
Belarus, the
Holy See,
Kazakhstan, and
Monaco.
P
æ
dia
06:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not just the flag of the European Union, I edited the description above accordingly. "All" countries are part of the (
European Council read:)
Council of Europe). -- User:Docu
It was designed as a flag for Europe - hence it is the European flag and should be used for Europe! Zoney 22:17, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't we use a small image of the continent? Nikola 23:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Council of Europe states:
Our case may fail one or both of these reasons. P æ dia 13:58, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
Since this poll is undetermined quite a while, let me add some commentary on why I feel the flag shouldn't be used, in hopes of changing people's votes. It was created by the Council of Europe, used by the EU. Though on my part I am as much a European federalist as can be and in favour of further European integration, I nonetheless do *not* accept that the Council of Europe has authority over the whole of the continent, to decide "emblems" for it that must be accepted per force by others. Neither does the EU have authority over the whole of the continent, the same way that the Arab League doesn't have authority over all Arab-speaking states and the African Union doesn't have authority over all African states. Europe existed as a term long before either the CE or the EU existed. Even though the Council decided a symbol to signify the continent, Wikipedia has no reason to back that choice of the Council, especially when *not* all countries of said continent are part of that organization and especially when the dilemma could be avoided by simple non-inclusion of the flag. I see a question of POV here: It'd be as if Wikipedia was claiming that the Council of Europe has legitimacy even over non-members. Which it doesn't. Aris Katsaris 13:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that there is any controversy on this subject. It's clearly a symbol that represents Europe since the Council of Europe has made it one and the Council of Europe includes virtually every single European state. No one here has shown any reason to believe that there is any opposition to this symbol by the three possible European states that are not members of the Council of Europe (Vatican City, Belarus and Kazakhstan). The Vatican even mints its own Euro coins ! Even if there were opposition, the flag can be included with a note mentioning which states object to its use. That is the proper role of an encyclopedia. It is in no way endorsing any political viewpoint but merely stating what is an obvious fact. Parmaestro 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 16
Support: 100%
Support
Oppose
Comments
While I see this vote is closed, I want to state a comment. You should note the main difference: Russia is in an ethnical, linguistical, historical and cultural sense an european country, whereas Turkey only in a geographical sense (3% of Turkish territory lie in Europe). -- Europa 20:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Votes: 15
Support: 80%
Support
Oppose
Comments
While I see this vote is closed, I will register my protest at the inclusion of Azerbaijan, which is located pretty much wholly in Asia, depending on how one draws the borderline. john k 06:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While I see this vote is closed, I want to state that Azerbaijan is as much European as Turkey, no more, no less. -- Europa 20:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wish to register my protest at the inclusion of Azerbaijan without the inclusion of both Armenia and Georgia. This looks wrong. Dmn 10:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Pity this is closed. There's no way Azerbaijan is in Europe! It has almost no part in European history -- none at all if it weren't for the Romans. Yes, these places do pass the European sports test but culturally they just do not feel European. Turkey has had long involvement in the affairs of Europe. Even it is rather borderline for inclusion. But Azerbaijan? Jeez. Dr Zen 11:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am also against including Azerbaijan in Template:Europe. Gugganij 13:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If Azerbaijan is included then it's only right and proper for Armenia and Georgia to also be included. Moosh88
A pity this vote is closed. Azerbaijan is not European. However, if Azerbaijan is included, it makes no sense not including Georgia and Armenia. Valentinian 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There are nine protesting comments above (compared to 17 who voted), and seven of them would be oppose votes, which would bring the vote ratio to way below 70%. I say we reopen this poll. Any objections? -- Joy [shallot] 22:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 12
Support: 100%
Support
Oppose
Comments
This sounds Scandinavian - is it? If so, why is it being polled on? Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Svalbard is since the 1920s a part of the Kingdom of Norway and can therefore not be regarded as a dependency. (CIA is far from the best source in this world!) See point 4.1 above. Jakro64 11:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Votes: 23
Support: 70%
Support
Oppose
Comments
If it's part of the EU, how can you not include it? blankfaze | •• 16:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Cyprus and Malta are members of both the
Non-Aligned Movement and the European Union?
P
æ
dia 16:51, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Votes: 12
Support: 0%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Can the World Book listings be verified? P æ dia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)
Votes: 15
Support: 27%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Why is this even being voted on? It's a European semi-autonomous region between Finland / Sweden. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I've removed my vote from support and abstains. Moravice
Votes: 12
Support: 100%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Where the heck is this place? Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Jan Mayen is since 1929 a part of the Kingdom of Norway and can therefore not be regarded as a dependency. (CIA is far from the best source in this world!) See point 4.1 above. Jakro64 11:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to mention an uninhabited island. -- Bjarki 13:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 20
Support: 70%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Ejrrjs 18:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC), military occupation, a continent location does not make.
These are military bases, not dependencies per se. They do belong to the UK, but so do a number of British embassies and consulates around the world—you sure would not consider including them all as dependencies?—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:22, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not part of Cyprus like Guatanamo is part of Cuba. They have a considerable area around them. And consulates and embassies are buildings, not territories.-- Joao Campos 13:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus states:
This 'clarifies' that the SBAs are and are not dependencies? P æ dia 06:46, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
I would put it that they are Overseas Territories (dependencies), but not entirely ordinary ones - though I am not sure any of them are 'ordinary' (who would group Pitcairn, Bermuda and BIOT and work out which was the norm?) - that's what makes them so fascinating. But they are definitely not your ordinary military base (take a tourist bus to see ancient ruins in Guantanamo?) - anywhere with 7,000 non-military-related inhabitants is a serious bit of territory. Civil Servant 07:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to come back again, but I am not sure how this debate relates to Talk:List of dependent territories and Special member state territories and their relations with the EU, on both of which I have contributed to support SBA inclusion. I take it there should be a consistent line about whether SBAs are a dependent territory and whether they are related to Europe (won't repeat why my views are yes and yes, except that if Cyprus is not in Europe, as opposed to EU, then fair enough SBAs would not be either). Civil Servant
Votes: 33
Support: 73%
Support
Oppose
Comments
I'm in favor of a short note for all debatable entries in the form "* see detailed definitions in article Europe." -- User:Docu
How about *?
By the way, it seems that we are getting the worst of both worlds here. People who have voted against most of the countries have also voted against footers; together with people who are genuinely against footers, they are majority. This vote should have been conducted after the vote about countries is finished. Nikola 05:42, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Votes: 66
Support: 70%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Can the World Book listings be verified? P æ dia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)
It has very little part in the common European heritage. Egypt has a better case, frankly Dr Zen 11:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Georgia is even aiming at EU membership by 2015, so I don't really see any point in not adding it to the list... Nightstallion 19:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46 / 66 is 0.6969... so this is not 70%! And even if it was, surely in this kind of a borderline situation is not appropriate to declare the poll closed?! I say we reopen it. -- Joy [shallot] 22:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with having qualifiers lumped with inclusion (agree to inclusion also means accepting qualifier). This too should be voted on seperately. For example, there is the substantial group who would simply consider Russia and Turkey (or at least Russia) as being part of Europe. Regardless of the geography. (Europe is a label that applies in many areas as well as geography, not to mention as a general "association").
My point is that the above suggested poll format allows me no outlet to disagree with having the qualifier. (also in individual cases I may be happy or not).
This must be addressed in any poll.
Zoney 18:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
World Book and CIA - The World Factbook's definition of the Europe/Asia border differ with that of Britannica. The key of the matter is whether the limit passes over the Caucasus Mountains or through the Kuma-Manych Depression. The latter definition leaves out Georgia and Azerbaijan completely, while the former includes a small part of those countries. I believe people voting should keep that in mind and stick with one definition. -- Cantus 00:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
On a lighter note, could we move the vote tallies and percentages to outside the section headers, for linking purposes? They are ever changing. Thanks. P æ dia 03:43, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Whitaker's Almanack 2004 World Geographical Statistics page 2 states:
This definitely includes in Europe, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and maybe Georgia, but not Armenia nor Cyprus. P æ dia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)
Europe:
Asia:
Asia:
[Note from Cantus: The Emba River is called Zhem, and the Ural River, Zhayyq, in Kazakh.]
-- Cantus 00:37, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
According to this totally anonymous source, the limits are:
-- Cantus 05:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi there,
Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with this Europe footer.
Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?
Zoney 21:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's a good idea to add Category:European countries here, but then the manually added copy in each of the pages that have it should be pruned, too. -- Joy [shallot] 09:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The current Europe page is very good in that respect - the list of european countries. It is the best! All things are taken into account, the disputable countries have explanation-footers, so both pro- and against- people should be content. If someone says something like "It is unthinkable to include Kazakhstan" - then this person should be capable of giving an exact explanation where (and why exactly there) in Russia the Europe border is, so that we can distinguish between Kazakshtan-bordering russian asian territories and around-the-europe-border russian territories. I don't think that it is good that we take the easy path of maximum convenience - "Russia is somehow european, no one disputes that, so we declare that Europe ends SOMEWHERE in Russia and we DON'T BOTHER where EXACTLY, it DOESN'T matter". Such thinking is too single-dimensional :)
We shouldn't try and decide on the borders of Europe. That would be like deciding that Napoleon was a liberator rather than a conqueror -- that's POV, right? Various sources outside Wikipedia disagree; I think we're required to report on the disagreement. A D Monroe III 23:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is and always will be that there is a piece of Kazakhstan that is arguably in Europe but there is absolutely no way it is a "European" country. (There are benefits to being considered part of Europe so nations tend to want in, of course, but that's not the same thing as being considered European.) Meanwhile, Cyprus arguably has no territory in the European continent but there is absolutely no way it is not a "European" country. There's no resolution of it unless you plump for geography or culture, and to do so is, of course, POV. ( CheeseDreams, unsigned)
I agree with A D Monroe III, it is more a political decision to include some countries and others not, see for example Cyprus. That this discussion would occur was quite obvious and after a year it hasn't still ended and it will probably never end. The reason is that Europe is not a fixed geographical reason, many encyclopaedias try to do so, but always find themself compromising or copying it from somewhere else. Ask people what is Europe and most of them wouldn't be able to define it. On the other hand, one could say that there are many descriptions for a geographically Europe. A minor Europe and a major Europe. I remember on holidays in Sweden that people there often refer to Europe as the part south of the Scandinavian peninsula. Even politicians of the EU have large discussions of what is Europe now exactly. The main reason is, Europe is not a geographical region, but rather cultural, trying to define it in a geographical sense would be very difficult. It is not a continent as such but part of the Eurasian continent, so somewhere in the middle one would find difficulties. This whole talk page is POV, what I'm saying is also POV, and adding some countries is POV, leaving some countries out is POV. So it will be very difficult to make this page NPOV. I think it's unnecessary to create a template about Europe as a region, because this definition is not clear. There's one of the Council of Europe, who is gathering, I believe the majority of the 'European' countries.-- Eigenwijze mustang 08:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cantus, why have you reverted my edits??? It is clearly stated that for a pool to be closed there are two requierments - "minimum 15 votes" and "70% for yes or no". The 'obvious' pools about Svalbard, etc. are with only 11 votes (I voted 12th, still 3 votes needed), so they were wrongly closed! It is not fair to bend the rules in such a way. Maybe the next 100 votes will be for the opposing cause of the current "result". Please explain. Alinor 08:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are Spain and Portugal bicontinental? There are two small Spanish exclaves on the African coast, and Azores are considered African geographically. —
Insta
ntnood 01:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
(Please join the discussion at Talk:Bicontinental country#Spain and Portugal.) — Insta ntnood 11:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Please, see vandalism by User:Caligvla, who removed four legitimate support votes for Armenia's inclusion in Template:Europe. [21]
I also suggest us to finally close these polls on Georgia and Armenia. Majority have already supported their inclusion in Template:Europe and there is no need to protract this already protracted poll even further.-- Tabib 04:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think the EBU article gives a good idea of what should be in Europe. The EBU is obviously EU influenced and the "Members in Europe" includes Georgia, Turkey, Armenia, Moldova and others. Hedley 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Could someone, perhaps, create a map that would show where the European-Asian border is (including more than one theory as applicable) in regards to nearby countries, and then place this map here? That would certainly help a lot of people to make a more informed decision.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
OK, it's obvious that the polling mechanism here hasn't really worked. The polls hovering inconclusively beetween 30 and 70% deserve to be put out of their misery. Couldn't there by a compromise 3rd footnote, reading something like "considered by some observers to belong to Europe, by others solely to Asia." ? Doops 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it about time to wrap these two up and include them in the template? As others have noted, Azerbaijan and Turkey are already in the list, so what exactly is the hold up here? SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
I guess it's all about economy. Turkey and azerbaijan can offer oil and developed industries. I am not familiar with Armenia but Georgia does belong to Europe since Georgian culture is absolutely European. Nancy 3 July 2006 2:07 (USA)
Voting inclusion of countries in a template, by deciding which definition of Europe to take is simply unwiki and is against "neutral point of view" concept so important for Wikipedia. Polls should only be used when the decision does not concern what definition to take as sole truth, Wikipedia does not take position, because taking position is not NPOV. There is a geographical definition of Europe, and neither Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are in. "European culturaly" is a subjective term and can be debated, and being member of "Concil of Europe" or such bodies does not amount to reject the position that all of those four countries are not part of Europe. For those reasons, it is logical that for a country to be included in a template of Europe, it should be geographically in Europe, with 50%+1 of its territory inside Europe. If the template does not do this, it reject the main notion that run Wikipedia. I can't even believe in the first place that so much people have voted without even pointing out how this poll is unwiki. What will be next? To vote wherever or not a god exist, so we shall vote for a "truth" here? Or what about a truth on which god between, Yaveh, Jeohav, Allah, God are more powerful, so that we can build a template with an order between the most powerful gods to the less powerful ones? What if, I, as a Wikipedian, adhere to the position(which, one has to admit, is supported by the majority in the Academia), that all those four countries are NOT in Europe, want to build a template about the countries of Europe, and exclude those four countries, would my POV position be rejected by another POV position(this template)??? Fadix 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur: this poll is unwiki; this template is unwiki. Consensus is unattainable, especially by the proposal above to decide the 50-50 Kazakhstan vote administratively. I have proposed the deletion of the template, on these frounds, as well as redundancy with Category:Europe Septentrionalis 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I can certainly understand a vote that Russia is European and Turkey is not, and I see no place on this poll to express one. Septentrionalis 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, my suggestion above that we work for a fresh compromise was greeted by a resounding silence; but please look below at the attempt I've made, all undismayed, at a compromise template. Although Fadix (see above) is wrong to suggest that we have no business going beyond "objective" geography (our aim should be to tell the full story, even if it is messy), it is certainly true that voting up/down on each individual country hasn't worked in the best interests of NPOV and has threatened the reputation of this template. The solution is not to delete it altogether but to find some sort of compromise which will allow it to be fixed. This have I attempted below. Doops | talk 19:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC), edited 22:42
Template:Europe2 — countries in Europe |
---|
Albania | Andorra | Austria | Belarus | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Iceland1 | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Macedonia | Malta | Moldova | Monaco | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Romania | San Marino | Serbia and Montenegro | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Ukraine | United Kingdom | Vatican City |
Countries straddling the Europe- Asia boundary as conventionally defined: Azerbaijan | Georgia | Kazakhstan | Russia | Turkey |
Countries wholly in Asia, but sometimes considered European for cultural or historical reasons: Armenia | Cyprus |
Dependencies: Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Asian geographically) | Faroe Islands | Gibraltar | Guernsey | Jan Mayen | Jersey | Isle of Man | Svalbard |
1. Iceland partly in North America |
This template is much better than the one that is being used currently. For one thing it is not POV like the current one.--
Moosh88
06:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest to people that voted against both Cyprus and Armenia (such that rightfully say: "geographycaly asian" for both) and to people that voted against Armenia only (after the Cyprus pool was closed) on the same grounds - to change their Armenia vote to "include (with footnote '2' of course)", becouse Cyprus is already included and so if Armenia is excluded the template will be clearly POV-ed and in conflict with itself. This way maybe one more pool will be closed soon.
Alinor
17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I see some voted 'opposing' to Armenia, but say: "exclude; or eventualy include if with a footnote" (maybe there are such votes in the Kazakhstan case too). Maybe they have voted before the footnotes-pool was closed. Now we have footnotes, so maybe they will want to change their vote to "include" too, becouse the condition they stipulated is satisfied.
Alinor
16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
If Kazakstan is excluded because of its questionable existence in the continent of Europe, while Cyprus is included with a proviso, why is Iceland wholly included in Europe? It's in the middle of the ocean, not close to any part of the European landmass, it stradles two tectonic plates, and the crust beneath it is oceanic crust, not continental. By the crustal view, it's not part of any continent. By the plate view, it's connected to North America as much as Europe, and should have a proviso attached. 132.205.94.174 22:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the note to say Iceland is 'partly in North America' is correct. It is partly on the North American plate, but that's not at all the same thing. I doubt you'd find a single person in Reykjavík who thinks their city is in North America. If anyone can find a reputable source which agrees with the footnote, then it should be cited - otherwise, I think the note should be removed. Worldtraveller 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Since when have tectonic plates been the standard defining continents? If that were the case then Arabia and India would be continents on their own and the north of Japan would belong to North America etc etc. Stop imposing a non-existant "geographical" definition of Europe, Wikipedia is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. -- Bjarki 23:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Template nominated for deletion on July 19; result of discussion/vote was to Keep. See the relevant entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at template talk:East Asia over whether the official name of territory, namely special administrative region, and which sovereign State the territories listed belong to, have to be specified in the {{ East Asia}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion and express your opinion. — Insta ntnood 11:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Why is Åland not included in the template? It is listed on the list of countries in the same manner as Svalbard. It may or may not be a dependency, but it is usually listed alongside with sovereign States as other dependent territories do. — Insta ntnood 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Åland due to its special international position should be included in the list. It has more autonomy than Svalbard or Jan Mayen Electionworld 22:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae gave this reason for not using simply "Macedonia" in the template:
This is also the case of "Moldova", most of the historical region of Moldova is outside the Republic of Moldova. Should we write "Republic of Moldova" instead of simply Moldova or do we have double standards ? :-) bogdan | Talk 20:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Topography Technology Solves Europe Asia Border Dispute
Many have allowed sentiment and personal bias to draw the Geographical border between Europe and Asia. There are many ways of defining the border. 1) Historically 2) Present Cultural Prevalence 3) DNA (which has not been perfected) & 4) Geographical Consensus.
In this discussion we are discussing the Geographical border.
When discussing geography one does not use the words “significant” or “insignificant”. Any piece of land is significant and many a nation has warred over a simple plot of land, and every State in the US is significant.
We can draw on many ideas as to the Europe Asia Geographical Border but the majority of Geographers fixed the Eastern and South Eastern borders as the Ural Mountains & River…..and the Caucasus. And of those Geographers is an established consensus that the Peaks of the Greater Caucasus marks the border.
The Caucasus are divided into Greater and Lesser portions. The Greater Caucasus runs horizontally and generally between Georgia and Russia…..and also Azerbaijan and Russia. I use the word “Generally” just as away to generalize ourselves with the area….the exact points can be found using Topographical Technology Programs.
Topographical Technology digitally maps the entire Greater Caucasus System into a 3 dimensional image that includes exact data on elevation. Since the Greater Caucasus System is an Unbroken chain mountain that runs between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea the mapping is extremely EXACT.
The program then draws a continuous line on the highest summits across the Entire Mountain Chain. Hence, you know the highest line of demarcation between Europe and Asia as agreed by the great majority of geographers. The Same is done for the Ural Mountains.
Now for Data Collecting and Percentages.
Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan would have listed the amount of land in Europe and in Asia. Then Each Nation would be assigned an exact Percent Number of the total land is in Europe. For example Turkey has around 3 % of its land in Europe.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION. Russia has more land in Europe then the other nations mentioned here, Followed by Kazakhstan, Followed by Turkey, Followed by Azerbaijan, Followed by Georgia. The order may differ in regards to percent of total land in Europe. Armenia may be argued into Europe by using a Cultural or Historical method yet not by using a Geographical Method with the Greater Caucasus as the demarcation point. Remember, the Greater Caucasus is one of the worlds most perfect examples of a watershed, rigid and definitive, an ideal border
Thank you,
Arabian
There appear to be some misunderstanding about what the European Economic Area is regarding the last edit. EEA = EU + EFTA - Switzerland. None of those countries below the header "Members of the European Economic Area (EEE)" belongs to it. -- Bjarki 21:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the deal with this new footer for countries of europe? Not only are these maps and geographical area subjective, but many countries and territories are left out. Where is San Marino? Malta? Vatican City? Some of these grouping to not even make much sense. The simple list before, with explanations that some countries like russia and turkey had terriory in asia as well, and and listing of places like the faroe island and gibraltor, made so much more sense. i think this new one is a shame, and might be taken as offensive, and is far less informative.-- sterms 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What we can read in Europe article: Sub-divisions of Europe are highly arbitrary, as little consensus exists on the various definitions that are proposed. No strict geographical conventions exist; the map below represents, however, the most widespread idea of what countries constitute the various regions of the continent. Often the various regions include different countries than those on the map. Nothing so arbitrary should be used in template. And it is too big now, and too overcrowded with links to notes. -- Monkbel 20:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
===>See Africa I rearranged the information on all of the continent footers because of the format of Africa's - it looks more professional and appealing than the current one, plus it includes more information on a marginally larger area. Justin (koavf) 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised there isn't a poll for Israel. If we should include countries (such as Armenia) that are only in some contexts considered part of Europe, Israel must be included as well. The Israeli Olympic Committee is a member of the European Olympic Committees [22] and so the country participates in European Championships in most sports. It's also in the Eurovision Song Contest since I don't know when. -- Jao 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the clutter of the footnotes - they don't really add much, and tend to be confusing anyway, jguk 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the template carries Category:European countries with it. This is all well and good, except that it really makes a mess of subcategorization. Many (possibly even most) of the countries listed have their own subcategories (i.e., Category:Slovakia is a subcat of Category:European countries), so placing all of these articles within the parent category is redundant and a bit messy. – Seancdaug 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Using templates to populate categories is a bad practice. Anyone who does a lot of category maintenance will agree. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Is a part of Europe! I don't understand why do you people keep removing it!-- tasc 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Aren't these countries or territories geographically in Asia? I would place the footnote mark next to them, but I think it's a little too controversial to do arbitrarily. -- Latinus 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
As »pesky Slovene« (this goes to Shallot :--) (see MediaWiki_talk:SFRY)) I would like to change current designation of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in this footer to (at least) Republic of Macedonia - since the article itself has such a name and it is also shorter. Any objections? -- XJamRastafire 11:04, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Jakob Stevo 22:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
The official name is FYR Macedonia specifically for NPOV reasons, to avoid upsetting Greece who do not want an apparant claim to parts of Macedonia that are within its boundaries. CheeseDreams 00:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Macedonia" links to Republic of Macedonia, inevitably causing confusion with Macedonia proper. Who can explain this discrepancy?-- Theathenae 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)
The templates now say R. Macedonia or Republic of Macedonia. This discussion has been done to death and back on Talk:Republic of Macedonia. We may have to go back to FYR Macedonia if any of the other Macedonias become republics, which seems unlikely now. -- GunnarRene 20:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
If we include Turkey and Georgia because of those bits of their territory that's in Europe, should we also include Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan? All these corner cases are a bit unwieldy... -- Shallot 20:25, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'd say we should follow the country list at Europe, so yes to Turkey, no to Georgia etc. Matthewmayer 00:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Europe mentions three additional countries after the main list, so we might as well add them here. -- User:Docu
User:Wik has been removing the following countries from the list: Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. Portions of these countries lie in Europe, in the same way that a portion of Turkey lies in Europe, but Wik is not removing Turkey, so his removal of these other countries is not consequential to his own criteria. Perhaps he should explain his reverts in the summary, instead of using the vacuous 'rv' or the childish 'rv moron'. -- Cantus 00:35, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Kazakhstan, at least, is pretty ridiculous. The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is only in Europe in an utterly marginal way. I'm pretty dubious about Azerbaijan, too. Not sure about Georgia. How about Cyprus, which joins the EU on Saturday? john 01:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that Georgia and Kazakhstan should be put in this MediaWiki. WhisperToMe 05:07, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
CIA - The World Factbook -- Field Listing - Location lists as partially located in Europe: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkey, but not Cyprus nor Georgia. List all four or none? Pædia | talk 16:02, 2004 May 3 (UTC)
Russia clearly should be listed as part of Europe. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan should not. So far as I can tell, only insignificant corners of them can be considered to be in Europe. Georgia probably should not, either. Turkey has a small but significant part that is clearly in Europe (unlike Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, which have parts in Europe based around vaguely defined borders in the east), and likes to consider itself a European country. Cyprus is clearly not geographically in Europe, but it is a member of the EU. john 17:18, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
Georgia is fine to not be. On the other hand, Europe is frequently considered a cultural entity. As largely Christian countries, Georgia and Armenia (and Cyprus) would probably be considered to be more European than Azerbaijan or Kazakhstan, even though they're geographically in Asia. At any rate, The border of Europe at the Dardanelles was the original defining feature of Europe. There's water, it's easy to determine. The borders of Europe along the Caucasus and the Urals are rather more difficult to figure out. The eastern Caucasus kind of peter out, and it's pretty arguable that Baku is on the southern side. And saying that part of Kazakhstan is in Europe is completely arbitrary - the Ural mountains peter out north of the Kazakh border. On the other hand, Istanbul is a European city by any definition, and Russia has been a major European power since the 18th century. john 00:28, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi Paedia. I don't really have the energy to argue about this stuff anymore, although I'm glad you're willing to actually discuss this stuff, instead of just reverting. To be honest with you, I have no idea what Template:Europe and its equivalents are for. My only real feeling is that only one of these should be listed at the bottom of any particular country page, and as such, we should have to decide on one region for each country to be in. By that standard, I'd say only Russia of the various questionable cases ought to go in Europe, and the rest should go in Middle East or Central Asia. But whatever. I don't see how these things are especially useful at all. Why do we need a table at the bottom of every country page linking it to every other country on the same continent with it? Why is this useful? And that's all I'll say on the subject for now. Maybe if I get up the energy for a fight at some time in the future, I'll just list all these pages on VfD. Until then, do what you like - obviously on the factual question of what countries geographically have bits in Europe, you are right, I just question the usefulness of this whole endeavor. john 06:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I'd include Cyprus and Turkey and pretty much every country in the EU. Also countries that take part in the Eurovision Songcontest should be considered. Kazachstan and Azerbijan are to far away. In mopst geography sources I know of they are seen as part of Asia. -- MGM 07:07, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
I was under the opinion that Europe ended at the Bosphorus and Dardanels, only including Turkey due to the bit near Constantinople. CheeseDreams 00:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why does this article include the European Union flag? -- Gutza 13:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It is NOT the flag of Europe. It is not a flag for Switzerland, Monaco, The Isle of Man, Russia, The Ukraine, etc. in any way whatsoever. CheeseDreams 00:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It IS the flag of Europe. Switzerland, Monaco, Russia, and The Ukraine, are all members of the Council of Europe and consequently it is utterly false and nonsense to say that is not a flag for them "in any way whatsoever." Parmaestro 13:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comparing the List of dependent territories one might wonder which principle guides if a territory is listed as a dependency or not.
/ Tuomas 01:12, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I add Åland – tentatively. / Tuomas 16:53, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The key phrase (the opening decission, actually) of the LoN's arbitration on Åland actually is
...which is not the same as "The Åland Islands are recognised to belong to Finland". The islands's autonomy is guaranteed by international treaties, which Finland has followed rather minutiously, like their de-militarized status, which has not been exactly as minutiously respected. Which is the criterion used for inclusion/exclusion? By the way; Nice to see you've found the talk page, Wik! / Tuomas 13:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I have added Svalbard again. There seems to be consensus it should be included. Its article states that it is a dependency, and that it lies "north of mainland Europe". By convention, it is included as part of Europe. If there are any objections, please put them here. Warofdreams 15:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
It's very odd to regard Svalbard and Jan Mayen as dependencies. Jan Mayen Is. is a to be considered a part of Nordland county, and Longyearbyen municipality as well as the rest of Svalbard is a part of the Kingdom of Norway. When it is a part of the kingdom it cannot be a dependency. It will be as to regard Northern Ireland a dependency of the United Kingdom, or to claim that Jersey and Guernsey as independent countries. Please begin to listen to the natives, or Wikipedia will only show what the majority of foreigners believe about different topics! Jakro64 20:25, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why is Cantus constantly reverting all these pages, without making a single comment here? Even Wik has participated in the talk page discussions. john 19:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
You made one comment, five days ago, and have not responded to any of the subsequent discussion of that topic. john 19:58, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
You've also reverted 7 times in the last 24 hours. john 20:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Cantus: After reviewing the edits, I happen to find myself mildly agreeing with your view (without prejudice to your rivals). Summarize your arguments here, and provide a good layout (using asterisks and daggers -- no superscript numerical footnotes please), and I shall support you. -- Kaihsu 20:05, 2004 May 5 (UTC) (admin)
Don't these media wiki continent type tables need to be mutually exclusive? That is to say, Kazakhstan shouldn't be listed here because it is in Template:Central Asia. What we ought to do is divide up all countries and dependent territories into mutually exclusive groups, and then just stick to that. john 20:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Just to add - doing this would perhaps be, in some sense, POV. In that case, all of these tables are POV, and should be removed. john 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
My point is that they're useless unless you make them mutually exclusive, because the point of these pages is to use them as a footer on country page articles. Since you generally only have one of these per country page, you have to decide which one each country is going to go on. These pages are not themselves articles, and only have value as far as they are a useful tool on the individual country pages. What's the point of listing Mongolia on MediaWiki:Central Asia, if we don't have a {{msg:Central Asia}} on the Mongolia page? john 20:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I'm just going to advocate deleting the whole mess. What useful purpose is served by these pages? john 20:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
Can an admin please tweak the font sizes? I can't see the list of dependencies clearly. Thanks. ✑whkoh | ✖ 04:15, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
This may be a minor issue, but there are differing opinions about how to list. I propose a compromise to list as "[[Vatican City|Holy See]]" or "[[Holy See]] ([[Vatican City]])".
CIA - The World Factbook -- FAQs states:
P æ dia 15:11, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Each poll question must be voted by a minimum of 15 users. 70% of support is required for a position to be declared a winner (or 30% or less to be declared a loser). Once a position is declared a winner, the appropiate change must be made to the article.
Please vote using this format: #~~~ - Optional comments.
Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked 'Discussion'.
Votes: 89
Support: 50.6%
Support
Oppose
No vote
Comments
I've never thought of Kazakhstan as a European country. blankfaze | •-• 16:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Whitaker's Almanack - LIST ALL WEBLINKS includes a link to the Kazakhstan Embassy in the UK, that states:
P æ dia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)
The part of Kazakhstan that is in Europe is insignificant both in size, and as to being a part of Europe. It is on the most undefined part of the border of Europe, and has played no role whatsoever in the history of Europe. john k 06:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Kazakhstan has much more european territory than Turkey - both in sq.km. and in % of the whole Kazakhstan. So in geography terms Kazakhstan is more european than Turkey. Also maybe even Russia has less european territory in % of whole Russia. Azerbaidjan is also undisputably consideren european (according to the pool here) and it has much less european territory in both sq.km. and %. Not to mention Cyprus. Alinor 11:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The Urals thing is a technicality. There's no way Kazakhstan is in Europe. I would not agree to the UK being included in category: South America just because it has control of the Falklands/Malvinas. Turkey plays in the European Championship, dude, has a long history of involvement in European history (not least of which is that it is the site of the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, very much a European invention), and is a candidate nation for the European Union. Dr Zen 11:29, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a brilliant suggestion, if I do say so myself, about how to resolve this dispute. Since the definition of the eastern border of Europe is basically an invention, replace it with another definition that is much clearer, viz.: Between the Black Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the border separating Europe and Asia shall be the line of longitude at 40 degrees east. At a single stroke, this will make it clear that Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan are geographically in Asia, ending the dispute there. (We can still consider them "culturally" as part of Europe, just as Cyprus is considered, even though it is indisputably in Asia.) Forty east slices only a tiny, tiny bit of Ukraine off to Asia, leaving the rest in Europe. What does it matter to Russia where exactly on the vast steppes the border of Europe and Asia is, especially considering that Moscow will remain in Europe? Teemu Leisti 23:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
comment to Pidgeot: The template is not exlusionatory. Kazakhstan, like Russia, Turkey, etc. can stay both in Asia and in Europe templates. Do you think that Turkey or Russia should be removed, becouse the majority of their territory is in Asia? Alinor 08:20, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This poll is absolutely ridiculous. If we agreed on Turkey and Russia, Kazakhstan should be in too. The border between Europe and Asia is clear and it's also perfectly clear that a large part of Kazakhstan lies in Europe. Kazakhstan is also a member of some European organisations, for example UEFA. In European Championship's Qualifiers Kazakhstan national football team plays in the same group as Ukraine, Greece, Denmark which are obviously European countries. I find denying that Kazakhstan is an european nation to be absolutely disrespectful to the people of Kazakhstan. Grue 10:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 93
Support: 60%
Support
Oppose
Comments
An Armenian would call themself a European. It is a huge insult to Armenians to call Turkey and Azerbaijan "European" when by blood and location they are not. It's also ironic that formerly Armenian territory is now part of both Turkey and Azerbaijan and you can them european. Personally, I'm disgusted in everyone that voted "oppose" for their short-sightedness on the issue. - G 10:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
As with Cyprus, I think that if the country is a member of a major European group, then you have to include it. blankfaze | •• 16:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Europe should be a page on the continent and not membership states in all organisations with Europe in its name. Armenia comes closer than Cyprus however. Moravice
I'd say Cyprus comes much closer. As far as European organizations go, the EU is far more important than the Council of Europe. john k 06:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It would be look very odd to have Georgia and Azerbaijan without Armenia too. Dmn 07:09, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Australia has a far more European culture than any of those three. Perhaps we should include it in Europe? Dr Zen 11:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If anybody looks up Armenia in the dictionary, the definition would be; an ancient country in West Asia that's now divided between Armenia, Turkey, and Iran. That definition of Armenia in the dictionary proves to everyone, that Armenia is not in Europe.-- Gramaic 19:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moosh Asks "Why Azerbaijan?" Answer: A small part of northern Azerbaijan lies north of the Caucasus, hence part of the country is "in Europe" Tomer TALK 18:43, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
As I do not know if I have the right to vote here in en.wikipedia, I give only a comment: In my opinion the Kuma-Manych Depression and not the Kaukasus is the geographic boundary of Europe. So, neither Armenia, nor Georgia or Azerbaijan would be part of Europe. I am not sure about Kazakhstan, but the small part of this country situated west of the Ural river seems to be insignificant, compared to the European part of Russia or Turkey ( Istanbul!). This area is thinly populated, the biggest settlements are Oral and Atyrau - the center of the later is on the east bank of Ural river. -- Franz Xaver 15:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 46
Support: 39.1%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Not all Europe uses this flag, i.e.
Belarus, the
Holy See,
Kazakhstan, and
Monaco.
P
æ
dia
06:53, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
It's not just the flag of the European Union, I edited the description above accordingly. "All" countries are part of the (
European Council read:)
Council of Europe). -- User:Docu
It was designed as a flag for Europe - hence it is the European flag and should be used for Europe! Zoney 22:17, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Couldn't we use a small image of the continent? Nikola 23:01, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
Interestingly, the Council of Europe states:
Our case may fail one or both of these reasons. P æ dia 13:58, 2004 Jun 11 (UTC)
Since this poll is undetermined quite a while, let me add some commentary on why I feel the flag shouldn't be used, in hopes of changing people's votes. It was created by the Council of Europe, used by the EU. Though on my part I am as much a European federalist as can be and in favour of further European integration, I nonetheless do *not* accept that the Council of Europe has authority over the whole of the continent, to decide "emblems" for it that must be accepted per force by others. Neither does the EU have authority over the whole of the continent, the same way that the Arab League doesn't have authority over all Arab-speaking states and the African Union doesn't have authority over all African states. Europe existed as a term long before either the CE or the EU existed. Even though the Council decided a symbol to signify the continent, Wikipedia has no reason to back that choice of the Council, especially when *not* all countries of said continent are part of that organization and especially when the dilemma could be avoided by simple non-inclusion of the flag. I see a question of POV here: It'd be as if Wikipedia was claiming that the Council of Europe has legitimacy even over non-members. Which it doesn't. Aris Katsaris 13:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm very surprised that there is any controversy on this subject. It's clearly a symbol that represents Europe since the Council of Europe has made it one and the Council of Europe includes virtually every single European state. No one here has shown any reason to believe that there is any opposition to this symbol by the three possible European states that are not members of the Council of Europe (Vatican City, Belarus and Kazakhstan). The Vatican even mints its own Euro coins ! Even if there were opposition, the flag can be included with a note mentioning which states object to its use. That is the proper role of an encyclopedia. It is in no way endorsing any political viewpoint but merely stating what is an obvious fact. Parmaestro 20:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 16
Support: 100%
Support
Oppose
Comments
While I see this vote is closed, I want to state a comment. You should note the main difference: Russia is in an ethnical, linguistical, historical and cultural sense an european country, whereas Turkey only in a geographical sense (3% of Turkish territory lie in Europe). -- Europa 20:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Votes: 15
Support: 80%
Support
Oppose
Comments
While I see this vote is closed, I will register my protest at the inclusion of Azerbaijan, which is located pretty much wholly in Asia, depending on how one draws the borderline. john k 06:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
While I see this vote is closed, I want to state that Azerbaijan is as much European as Turkey, no more, no less. -- Europa 20:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wish to register my protest at the inclusion of Azerbaijan without the inclusion of both Armenia and Georgia. This looks wrong. Dmn 10:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Pity this is closed. There's no way Azerbaijan is in Europe! It has almost no part in European history -- none at all if it weren't for the Romans. Yes, these places do pass the European sports test but culturally they just do not feel European. Turkey has had long involvement in the affairs of Europe. Even it is rather borderline for inclusion. But Azerbaijan? Jeez. Dr Zen 11:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am also against including Azerbaijan in Template:Europe. Gugganij 13:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If Azerbaijan is included then it's only right and proper for Armenia and Georgia to also be included. Moosh88
A pity this vote is closed. Azerbaijan is not European. However, if Azerbaijan is included, it makes no sense not including Georgia and Armenia. Valentinian 14:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There are nine protesting comments above (compared to 17 who voted), and seven of them would be oppose votes, which would bring the vote ratio to way below 70%. I say we reopen this poll. Any objections? -- Joy [shallot] 22:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 12
Support: 100%
Support
Oppose
Comments
This sounds Scandinavian - is it? If so, why is it being polled on? Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Svalbard is since the 1920s a part of the Kingdom of Norway and can therefore not be regarded as a dependency. (CIA is far from the best source in this world!) See point 4.1 above. Jakro64 11:15, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Votes: 23
Support: 70%
Support
Oppose
Comments
If it's part of the EU, how can you not include it? blankfaze | •• 16:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Cyprus and Malta are members of both the
Non-Aligned Movement and the European Union?
P
æ
dia 16:51, 2004 Jun 17 (UTC)
Votes: 12
Support: 0%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Can the World Book listings be verified? P æ dia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)
Votes: 15
Support: 27%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Why is this even being voted on? It's a European semi-autonomous region between Finland / Sweden. Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I've removed my vote from support and abstains. Moravice
Votes: 12
Support: 100%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Where the heck is this place? Zoney 09:10, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
Jan Mayen is since 1929 a part of the Kingdom of Norway and can therefore not be regarded as a dependency. (CIA is far from the best source in this world!) See point 4.1 above. Jakro64 11:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to mention an uninhabited island. -- Bjarki 13:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Votes: 20
Support: 70%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Ejrrjs 18:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC), military occupation, a continent location does not make.
These are military bases, not dependencies per se. They do belong to the UK, but so do a number of British embassies and consulates around the world—you sure would not consider including them all as dependencies?—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:22, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not part of Cyprus like Guatanamo is part of Cuba. They have a considerable area around them. And consulates and embassies are buildings, not territories.-- Joao Campos 13:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sovereign Base Areas Cyprus states:
This 'clarifies' that the SBAs are and are not dependencies? P æ dia 06:46, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
I would put it that they are Overseas Territories (dependencies), but not entirely ordinary ones - though I am not sure any of them are 'ordinary' (who would group Pitcairn, Bermuda and BIOT and work out which was the norm?) - that's what makes them so fascinating. But they are definitely not your ordinary military base (take a tourist bus to see ancient ruins in Guantanamo?) - anywhere with 7,000 non-military-related inhabitants is a serious bit of territory. Civil Servant 07:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry to come back again, but I am not sure how this debate relates to Talk:List of dependent territories and Special member state territories and their relations with the EU, on both of which I have contributed to support SBA inclusion. I take it there should be a consistent line about whether SBAs are a dependent territory and whether they are related to Europe (won't repeat why my views are yes and yes, except that if Cyprus is not in Europe, as opposed to EU, then fair enough SBAs would not be either). Civil Servant
Votes: 33
Support: 73%
Support
Oppose
Comments
I'm in favor of a short note for all debatable entries in the form "* see detailed definitions in article Europe." -- User:Docu
How about *?
By the way, it seems that we are getting the worst of both worlds here. People who have voted against most of the countries have also voted against footers; together with people who are genuinely against footers, they are majority. This vote should have been conducted after the vote about countries is finished. Nikola 05:42, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Votes: 66
Support: 70%
Support
Oppose
Comments
Can the World Book listings be verified? P æ dia 20:22, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)
It has very little part in the common European heritage. Egypt has a better case, frankly Dr Zen 11:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Georgia is even aiming at EU membership by 2015, so I don't really see any point in not adding it to the list... Nightstallion 19:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
46 / 66 is 0.6969... so this is not 70%! And even if it was, surely in this kind of a borderline situation is not appropriate to declare the poll closed?! I say we reopen it. -- Joy [shallot] 22:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with having qualifiers lumped with inclusion (agree to inclusion also means accepting qualifier). This too should be voted on seperately. For example, there is the substantial group who would simply consider Russia and Turkey (or at least Russia) as being part of Europe. Regardless of the geography. (Europe is a label that applies in many areas as well as geography, not to mention as a general "association").
My point is that the above suggested poll format allows me no outlet to disagree with having the qualifier. (also in individual cases I may be happy or not).
This must be addressed in any poll.
Zoney 18:31, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
World Book and CIA - The World Factbook's definition of the Europe/Asia border differ with that of Britannica. The key of the matter is whether the limit passes over the Caucasus Mountains or through the Kuma-Manych Depression. The latter definition leaves out Georgia and Azerbaijan completely, while the former includes a small part of those countries. I believe people voting should keep that in mind and stick with one definition. -- Cantus 00:44, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
On a lighter note, could we move the vote tallies and percentages to outside the section headers, for linking purposes? They are ever changing. Thanks. P æ dia 03:43, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
Whitaker's Almanack 2004 World Geographical Statistics page 2 states:
This definitely includes in Europe, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and maybe Georgia, but not Armenia nor Cyprus. P æ dia 20:09, 2004 Jun 5 (UTC)
Europe:
Asia:
Asia:
[Note from Cantus: The Emba River is called Zhem, and the Ural River, Zhayyq, in Kazakh.]
-- Cantus 00:37, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
According to this totally anonymous source, the limits are:
-- Cantus 05:47, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi there,
Due to the duplication of countries in both EU and Europe footers, I created a new Template:European_countries_not_in_EU for those European countries not in the EU. This need only be put on pages which have the EU footer - other european countries should probably stick with this Europe footer.
Before I change all other EU country pages (I've only changed UK and Ireland), I'm just looking to see if there's any major objections?
Zoney 21:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's a good idea to add Category:European countries here, but then the manually added copy in each of the pages that have it should be pruned, too. -- Joy [shallot] 09:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The current Europe page is very good in that respect - the list of european countries. It is the best! All things are taken into account, the disputable countries have explanation-footers, so both pro- and against- people should be content. If someone says something like "It is unthinkable to include Kazakhstan" - then this person should be capable of giving an exact explanation where (and why exactly there) in Russia the Europe border is, so that we can distinguish between Kazakshtan-bordering russian asian territories and around-the-europe-border russian territories. I don't think that it is good that we take the easy path of maximum convenience - "Russia is somehow european, no one disputes that, so we declare that Europe ends SOMEWHERE in Russia and we DON'T BOTHER where EXACTLY, it DOESN'T matter". Such thinking is too single-dimensional :)
We shouldn't try and decide on the borders of Europe. That would be like deciding that Napoleon was a liberator rather than a conqueror -- that's POV, right? Various sources outside Wikipedia disagree; I think we're required to report on the disagreement. A D Monroe III 23:14, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The problem is and always will be that there is a piece of Kazakhstan that is arguably in Europe but there is absolutely no way it is a "European" country. (There are benefits to being considered part of Europe so nations tend to want in, of course, but that's not the same thing as being considered European.) Meanwhile, Cyprus arguably has no territory in the European continent but there is absolutely no way it is not a "European" country. There's no resolution of it unless you plump for geography or culture, and to do so is, of course, POV. ( CheeseDreams, unsigned)
I agree with A D Monroe III, it is more a political decision to include some countries and others not, see for example Cyprus. That this discussion would occur was quite obvious and after a year it hasn't still ended and it will probably never end. The reason is that Europe is not a fixed geographical reason, many encyclopaedias try to do so, but always find themself compromising or copying it from somewhere else. Ask people what is Europe and most of them wouldn't be able to define it. On the other hand, one could say that there are many descriptions for a geographically Europe. A minor Europe and a major Europe. I remember on holidays in Sweden that people there often refer to Europe as the part south of the Scandinavian peninsula. Even politicians of the EU have large discussions of what is Europe now exactly. The main reason is, Europe is not a geographical region, but rather cultural, trying to define it in a geographical sense would be very difficult. It is not a continent as such but part of the Eurasian continent, so somewhere in the middle one would find difficulties. This whole talk page is POV, what I'm saying is also POV, and adding some countries is POV, leaving some countries out is POV. So it will be very difficult to make this page NPOV. I think it's unnecessary to create a template about Europe as a region, because this definition is not clear. There's one of the Council of Europe, who is gathering, I believe the majority of the 'European' countries.-- Eigenwijze mustang 08:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cantus, why have you reverted my edits??? It is clearly stated that for a pool to be closed there are two requierments - "minimum 15 votes" and "70% for yes or no". The 'obvious' pools about Svalbard, etc. are with only 11 votes (I voted 12th, still 3 votes needed), so they were wrongly closed! It is not fair to bend the rules in such a way. Maybe the next 100 votes will be for the opposing cause of the current "result". Please explain. Alinor 08:20, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are Spain and Portugal bicontinental? There are two small Spanish exclaves on the African coast, and Azores are considered African geographically. —
Insta
ntnood 01:45, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
(Please join the discussion at Talk:Bicontinental country#Spain and Portugal.) — Insta ntnood 11:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Please, see vandalism by User:Caligvla, who removed four legitimate support votes for Armenia's inclusion in Template:Europe. [21]
I also suggest us to finally close these polls on Georgia and Armenia. Majority have already supported their inclusion in Template:Europe and there is no need to protract this already protracted poll even further.-- Tabib 04:46, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I think the EBU article gives a good idea of what should be in Europe. The EBU is obviously EU influenced and the "Members in Europe" includes Georgia, Turkey, Armenia, Moldova and others. Hedley 15:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Could someone, perhaps, create a map that would show where the European-Asian border is (including more than one theory as applicable) in regards to nearby countries, and then place this map here? That would certainly help a lot of people to make a more informed decision.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:51, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
OK, it's obvious that the polling mechanism here hasn't really worked. The polls hovering inconclusively beetween 30 and 70% deserve to be put out of their misery. Couldn't there by a compromise 3rd footnote, reading something like "considered by some observers to belong to Europe, by others solely to Asia." ? Doops 18:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it about time to wrap these two up and include them in the template? As others have noted, Azerbaijan and Turkey are already in the list, so what exactly is the hold up here? SouthernComfort 3 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
I guess it's all about economy. Turkey and azerbaijan can offer oil and developed industries. I am not familiar with Armenia but Georgia does belong to Europe since Georgian culture is absolutely European. Nancy 3 July 2006 2:07 (USA)
Voting inclusion of countries in a template, by deciding which definition of Europe to take is simply unwiki and is against "neutral point of view" concept so important for Wikipedia. Polls should only be used when the decision does not concern what definition to take as sole truth, Wikipedia does not take position, because taking position is not NPOV. There is a geographical definition of Europe, and neither Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia are in. "European culturaly" is a subjective term and can be debated, and being member of "Concil of Europe" or such bodies does not amount to reject the position that all of those four countries are not part of Europe. For those reasons, it is logical that for a country to be included in a template of Europe, it should be geographically in Europe, with 50%+1 of its territory inside Europe. If the template does not do this, it reject the main notion that run Wikipedia. I can't even believe in the first place that so much people have voted without even pointing out how this poll is unwiki. What will be next? To vote wherever or not a god exist, so we shall vote for a "truth" here? Or what about a truth on which god between, Yaveh, Jeohav, Allah, God are more powerful, so that we can build a template with an order between the most powerful gods to the less powerful ones? What if, I, as a Wikipedian, adhere to the position(which, one has to admit, is supported by the majority in the Academia), that all those four countries are NOT in Europe, want to build a template about the countries of Europe, and exclude those four countries, would my POV position be rejected by another POV position(this template)??? Fadix 01:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I concur: this poll is unwiki; this template is unwiki. Consensus is unattainable, especially by the proposal above to decide the 50-50 Kazakhstan vote administratively. I have proposed the deletion of the template, on these frounds, as well as redundancy with Category:Europe Septentrionalis 18:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I can certainly understand a vote that Russia is European and Turkey is not, and I see no place on this poll to express one. Septentrionalis 17:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, my suggestion above that we work for a fresh compromise was greeted by a resounding silence; but please look below at the attempt I've made, all undismayed, at a compromise template. Although Fadix (see above) is wrong to suggest that we have no business going beyond "objective" geography (our aim should be to tell the full story, even if it is messy), it is certainly true that voting up/down on each individual country hasn't worked in the best interests of NPOV and has threatened the reputation of this template. The solution is not to delete it altogether but to find some sort of compromise which will allow it to be fixed. This have I attempted below. Doops | talk 19:32, 19 July 2005 (UTC), edited 22:42
Template:Europe2 — countries in Europe |
---|
Albania | Andorra | Austria | Belarus | Belgium | Bosnia and Herzegovina | Bulgaria | Croatia | Czech Republic | Denmark | Estonia | Finland | France | Germany | Greece | Hungary | Iceland1 | Ireland | Italy | Latvia | Liechtenstein | Lithuania | Luxembourg | Macedonia | Malta | Moldova | Monaco | Netherlands | Norway | Poland | Portugal | Romania | San Marino | Serbia and Montenegro | Slovakia | Slovenia | Spain | Sweden | Switzerland | Ukraine | United Kingdom | Vatican City |
Countries straddling the Europe- Asia boundary as conventionally defined: Azerbaijan | Georgia | Kazakhstan | Russia | Turkey |
Countries wholly in Asia, but sometimes considered European for cultural or historical reasons: Armenia | Cyprus |
Dependencies: Akrotiri and Dhekelia (Asian geographically) | Faroe Islands | Gibraltar | Guernsey | Jan Mayen | Jersey | Isle of Man | Svalbard |
1. Iceland partly in North America |
This template is much better than the one that is being used currently. For one thing it is not POV like the current one.--
Moosh88
06:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest to people that voted against both Cyprus and Armenia (such that rightfully say: "geographycaly asian" for both) and to people that voted against Armenia only (after the Cyprus pool was closed) on the same grounds - to change their Armenia vote to "include (with footnote '2' of course)", becouse Cyprus is already included and so if Armenia is excluded the template will be clearly POV-ed and in conflict with itself. This way maybe one more pool will be closed soon.
Alinor
17:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, as I see some voted 'opposing' to Armenia, but say: "exclude; or eventualy include if with a footnote" (maybe there are such votes in the Kazakhstan case too). Maybe they have voted before the footnotes-pool was closed. Now we have footnotes, so maybe they will want to change their vote to "include" too, becouse the condition they stipulated is satisfied.
Alinor
16:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
If Kazakstan is excluded because of its questionable existence in the continent of Europe, while Cyprus is included with a proviso, why is Iceland wholly included in Europe? It's in the middle of the ocean, not close to any part of the European landmass, it stradles two tectonic plates, and the crust beneath it is oceanic crust, not continental. By the crustal view, it's not part of any continent. By the plate view, it's connected to North America as much as Europe, and should have a proviso attached. 132.205.94.174 22:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the note to say Iceland is 'partly in North America' is correct. It is partly on the North American plate, but that's not at all the same thing. I doubt you'd find a single person in Reykjavík who thinks their city is in North America. If anyone can find a reputable source which agrees with the footnote, then it should be cited - otherwise, I think the note should be removed. Worldtraveller 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Since when have tectonic plates been the standard defining continents? If that were the case then Arabia and India would be continents on their own and the north of Japan would belong to North America etc etc. Stop imposing a non-existant "geographical" definition of Europe, Wikipedia is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. -- Bjarki 23:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Template nominated for deletion on July 19; result of discussion/vote was to Keep. See the relevant entry on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005. RedWolf 06:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
There's currently a discussion at template talk:East Asia over whether the official name of territory, namely special administrative region, and which sovereign State the territories listed belong to, have to be specified in the {{ East Asia}} template. Please feel free to join the discussion and express your opinion. — Insta ntnood 11:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Why is Åland not included in the template? It is listed on the list of countries in the same manner as Svalbard. It may or may not be a dependency, but it is usually listed alongside with sovereign States as other dependent territories do. — Insta ntnood 14:11, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Åland due to its special international position should be included in the list. It has more autonomy than Svalbard or Jan Mayen Electionworld 22:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Theathenae gave this reason for not using simply "Macedonia" in the template:
This is also the case of "Moldova", most of the historical region of Moldova is outside the Republic of Moldova. Should we write "Republic of Moldova" instead of simply Moldova or do we have double standards ? :-) bogdan | Talk 20:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Topography Technology Solves Europe Asia Border Dispute
Many have allowed sentiment and personal bias to draw the Geographical border between Europe and Asia. There are many ways of defining the border. 1) Historically 2) Present Cultural Prevalence 3) DNA (which has not been perfected) & 4) Geographical Consensus.
In this discussion we are discussing the Geographical border.
When discussing geography one does not use the words “significant” or “insignificant”. Any piece of land is significant and many a nation has warred over a simple plot of land, and every State in the US is significant.
We can draw on many ideas as to the Europe Asia Geographical Border but the majority of Geographers fixed the Eastern and South Eastern borders as the Ural Mountains & River…..and the Caucasus. And of those Geographers is an established consensus that the Peaks of the Greater Caucasus marks the border.
The Caucasus are divided into Greater and Lesser portions. The Greater Caucasus runs horizontally and generally between Georgia and Russia…..and also Azerbaijan and Russia. I use the word “Generally” just as away to generalize ourselves with the area….the exact points can be found using Topographical Technology Programs.
Topographical Technology digitally maps the entire Greater Caucasus System into a 3 dimensional image that includes exact data on elevation. Since the Greater Caucasus System is an Unbroken chain mountain that runs between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea the mapping is extremely EXACT.
The program then draws a continuous line on the highest summits across the Entire Mountain Chain. Hence, you know the highest line of demarcation between Europe and Asia as agreed by the great majority of geographers. The Same is done for the Ural Mountains.
Now for Data Collecting and Percentages.
Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Georgia & Azerbaijan would have listed the amount of land in Europe and in Asia. Then Each Nation would be assigned an exact Percent Number of the total land is in Europe. For example Turkey has around 3 % of its land in Europe.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION. Russia has more land in Europe then the other nations mentioned here, Followed by Kazakhstan, Followed by Turkey, Followed by Azerbaijan, Followed by Georgia. The order may differ in regards to percent of total land in Europe. Armenia may be argued into Europe by using a Cultural or Historical method yet not by using a Geographical Method with the Greater Caucasus as the demarcation point. Remember, the Greater Caucasus is one of the worlds most perfect examples of a watershed, rigid and definitive, an ideal border
Thank you,
Arabian
There appear to be some misunderstanding about what the European Economic Area is regarding the last edit. EEA = EU + EFTA - Switzerland. None of those countries below the header "Members of the European Economic Area (EEE)" belongs to it. -- Bjarki 21:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
What is the deal with this new footer for countries of europe? Not only are these maps and geographical area subjective, but many countries and territories are left out. Where is San Marino? Malta? Vatican City? Some of these grouping to not even make much sense. The simple list before, with explanations that some countries like russia and turkey had terriory in asia as well, and and listing of places like the faroe island and gibraltor, made so much more sense. i think this new one is a shame, and might be taken as offensive, and is far less informative.-- sterms 19:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
What we can read in Europe article: Sub-divisions of Europe are highly arbitrary, as little consensus exists on the various definitions that are proposed. No strict geographical conventions exist; the map below represents, however, the most widespread idea of what countries constitute the various regions of the continent. Often the various regions include different countries than those on the map. Nothing so arbitrary should be used in template. And it is too big now, and too overcrowded with links to notes. -- Monkbel 20:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
===>See Africa I rearranged the information on all of the continent footers because of the format of Africa's - it looks more professional and appealing than the current one, plus it includes more information on a marginally larger area. Justin (koavf) 14:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised there isn't a poll for Israel. If we should include countries (such as Armenia) that are only in some contexts considered part of Europe, Israel must be included as well. The Israeli Olympic Committee is a member of the European Olympic Committees [22] and so the country participates in European Championships in most sports. It's also in the Eurovision Song Contest since I don't know when. -- Jao 16:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the clutter of the footnotes - they don't really add much, and tend to be confusing anyway, jguk 12:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Currently, the template carries Category:European countries with it. This is all well and good, except that it really makes a mess of subcategorization. Many (possibly even most) of the countries listed have their own subcategories (i.e., Category:Slovakia is a subcat of Category:European countries), so placing all of these articles within the parent category is redundant and a bit messy. – Seancdaug 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Using templates to populate categories is a bad practice. Anyone who does a lot of category maintenance will agree. -- Netoholic @ 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Is a part of Europe! I don't understand why do you people keep removing it!-- tasc 19:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Aren't these countries or territories geographically in Asia? I would place the footnote mark next to them, but I think it's a little too controversial to do arbitrarily. -- Latinus 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)