Template talk:Asia topic/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Names of Korea

The use of this template in this article gives the template an extremely awkward, unfortunate name, as it reads like stereotypical pidgin english. This type of complex template is absolutely new to me, and i do see how the "name of" prefix gets added to the country names and thus points to the articles called "name of foo" etc, but could someone fix this use so it doesnt have that awkwardness? I won't touch it until i take the time to understand it better, which may be for a long time.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.132.46 (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It simply goes on what the majority of articles are using. "Name of" and "Names of" do sound a bit awkward; "etymology" would be a better word to use for that, but unfortunately it's up to the articles to adopt that terminology first. Nightw 06:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tjpob, 6 July 2011

There is no 'Christianity in East Timor (Timor Leste)' page, (even though someone has tried to make a link to a page with that name). I suggest the 'Roman Catholicism in East Timor' page. - This is in regards to the 'Christianity in Asia' template. Tjpob (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why size one size-fits-all super templates, well, suck. --Merbabu (talk) 08:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is fixed through the creation of a redirect. It has nothing to do with this template. I've created the redirect Christianity in East Timor. Nightw 10:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Title of Topic Template

The title should read "Constitutions of Asia", not "Constitution of Asia". It's minor, but please make Constitution plural, as the template is supposed to be about the Constitutions of Asian countries. Thanks.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a standard template, so to change the title insert "title=Constitutions of Asia" into the template coding. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd row header

In a previous discussion the autonomies were removed, however the row name still includes autonomies. It should be removed, leaving just what is in Template:Asian topic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Go for it. Nightw 10:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of it. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh --> Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

Hi, could Nagorno-Karabakh please be changed to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. It's listed under "states with limited recognition" and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is the state, while Nagorno-Karabakh is just the geographical area. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit trickier than that. "Nagorno-Karabakh" is often used as a shortform name for the state, which is used for most states on this list. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

{{Asia topic}} and {{Telephone numbers in Asia}} refers to Telephone numbers in Nagorno-Karabakh

{{Europe topic}} and {{Telephone numbers in Europe}} refers to Telephone numbers in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

Presumably, one or the other - Europe or Asia - needs to be fixed. -- 80.42.236.111 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Weird. This should be pipelinked to the NKR at the least, like the Burma (Myanmar) link. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a pipelink for the moment, but in the long run {{Asia topic}} and {tl|Europe topic}} should become consistent. Jenks24 (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that end goal. There's a larger problem with these templates though, in that there is no consistency in the use of "the" before the name in article titles and text. Some do, some don't. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a pipe. In the end it might cause more confusion that it solves. It would be better to decide which form we want to use and then update either this template or {{Europe topic}} to match. Chipmunkdavis: you may be right about there being no consistency, but as long as there is redirect in the other place, the navigation link will work. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we have to decide, my vote (or "!vote") would be for Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, as that's the actual name of the state and it's listed as a state. Otherwise it would be similar to using America instead of United States. Jenks24 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote for Nagorno-Karabakh as a common short name of the state, otherwise it would be similar to using United States of America when you could simply use United States. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted at Template talk:Europe topic to try to get some more opinions on this. In the meantime I am disabling the {{editprotected}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just plain Nagorno-Karabakh.`

We do not use "France" to refer to a geographical remnant of the Frankish Empire, and "French Republic" to refer to the state which lies therein. Because that would be dumb.

Enough with this "purist" silliness.

Varlaam (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan and South Ossetia

Shouldn't the ROC (Taiwan) be placed after South Ossetia? 218.250.143.16 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, because Republic of China, which is the official name that we use on Wikipedia, begins with R. Quigley (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's conventionally sorted under #T on Wikipedia. 218.250.143.16 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorting under R is ridiculous.

Sorting under F would be ok since we used to call the country Formosa after the island.

T is the natural sort.

Even if someone insists on Republic of China, Republic is just an attribute, and the sort would be on C.

No one sorts Australia under C (for Commonwealth of ...). Or Canada under D. Or South Africa or Mexico under U.

Varlaam (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Egypt Should not be in the List

I wonder why Egypt is in the list whereas it's in Africa geographically? OnesimusUnbound (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I just realised that Sanai is part of Asia :) OnesimusUnbound (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It still have to be removed from the template since it is always considered an African state. The template also needs to be edited since the first list is too wide.--Wisamzaqoot (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Navbox#Wrapping issues. nb: Sinai, and it's in both. Alarbus (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The same is true for Yemen, which is partially in Africa. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Row merge proposal

Let's just merge rows into a single row, states and territories. The reader doesn't care about these multiple rows because it doesn't group articles in a meaningful way. --Bxj (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the topic. I assume articles such as "Government of x" will have a distinction. What is probably the main issue is that some eidtors would not like seeing states like Abkhazia near the others. CMD (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The dependencies group can be simplified as proposed above. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Coding move

{{editprotected}} The {{#if:{{{countries_only|}}}|foo}} coding needs to be moved from list 2 to list 3. CMD (talk) 14:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Israel is a state with limited recognition

See List of states with limited recognition. It should be listed in that subsection of the template. Can't edit it myself as the page is protected for only admin editing? Help please. Tiamut^talk 21:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the intent of the section is to list states with very limited recognition, like Transnistria or Northern Cyprus. It would be POINTy to put, say, South Korea, which is just not recognized by North Korea, in the same category as Transnistria. Israel is somewhere in between, but it seems like the great majority of states recognize its statehood, so I disagree with listing it in the "limited" subsection. Shrigley (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me second that. Jeff Song (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not very NPOV. Palestine is recognized by 129 (66.8%) of the 193 member states, and Israel is not recognized by 32, so the difference between them isn't very large. Tiamut^talk 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is not a UN member, and is not a sovereign state, yet. But thanks for confirming the POINTy nature of your request. Jeff Song (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::Its not POINTy at all. I'm trying to understand why the section for States with limited recognition on this template uses a set of criteria that differs from our article on that subject. You are arguing that lack of UN membership and lack of sovereignty are the key defining characteristics here right? Thanks for clarifying your position. My position is states listed in our article on the subject should be included in that section here. Tiamut^talk 21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Not POINTy, huh? Are you also saying we should move China, both Koreas, Armenia and Cyprus down to the second section? Funny how I missed that. Jeff Song (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily oppose putting Palestine in the "sovereign states" subsection, but I can anticipate some objections based on the PLO's lack of effective sovereign control over its claimed territory, lack of participation in international institutions (though this is changing), etc. But the contrastive subsection title is "states with limited recognition", implying that our criteria is constitutive. It might be worthwhile clarifying which criteria we are using to sort the states. UN membership sounds reasonable. Shrigley (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Some clarification would be nice yes. But why should it differ from our main article on this subject? Tiamut^talk 21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, Israel belongs in the first section, not the second. CMD (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, would you like to elucidate a rationale? Tiamut^talk 21:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason Armenia, China, and Korea 1 and 2 do, they're integrated members of the international community. They're separated on our main article for a reason. CMD (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Marking Israel as a state with limited recognition would be sweet.

The only thing sweeter would be when an IDF soldier is court-martialed for shooting a 12-year-old Palestinian girl, twice, he isn't automatically exonerated because he was acting reasonably.

US sailors sunning on a deck. Hit 'em with the napalm!

Middle-aged Turks running away. Shoot 'em in the back; it's self-defence.

Mark Israel as limited; maybe then they'll behave like the civilized place they are constantly telling us they are.

Sorry that any honest discussion of Israel will automatically by POINTy.

They bring it on themselves. Varlaam (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Parliament [sic] of Asia

There is more than one.
Perhaps we could see a plural there?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Update link request

The link to 'Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China' needs to be updated to 'Environmental issues in China'. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Oy, this is a complicated template! Amend the above request to update from 'People's Republic of China' to 'China'. And add a related request, update link from 'Republic of China' to 'Taiwan'. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012

I would like Environmental issues in Siachen added in "Dependencies and other Territories" section of {{Asia in topic|Environmental issues in}} (Environmental issues in Asia). Can an admin please help me by adding it. And probably documentation of this template also needs to be updated. Thanks --SMS ^Talk 21:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Siachen is not a political entity. Also, this is a general template, and can not handle specific article requests. CMD (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Siachen is a territory (a disputed one) and that is why I suggested it to be added to "Dependencies and other Territories" section. --SMS ^Talk 09:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything can be considered a territory. We're not including every bit of Asia in the template. Given that, just territories some sources consider separate from sovereign states are in that. CMD (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So then why not add a Disputed Territories section in the temlplate. And btw Siachen is not an ordinary territory, it is world's highest battleground where thousands of soldiers of India and Pakistan have lost their lives in last two decades. The Siachen glacier is world's longest glacier outside polar area and millions of people are dependent on its water. --SMS ^Talk 14:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Because there's no good reason to add a disputed territories section. Many standard articles found using this template probably don't, and won't, exist for them. CMD (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

>SMS, you'll remember we have found much with which to agree on the Siachen region, environmental impacts. But templates are inherently about political geography and are streamlined (a template is not a WP article), as you know, it just can't include the numerous disputed zones.... Siachen Glacier is in most ways no different from Aksai Chin, Demchok, Kalapani, Abu Musa, half a dozen or more Pacific island groups, Golan Heights, Shaba Farms, Arunachal Pradesh,Preah Vihear, etc., and that's just a partial list and just in Asia.DLinth (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I saw a template about Environmental issues in Asia with about three dozen red links and a section named "Dependencies and other territories", so I thought Siachen qualifies the other territories label, but never mind. --SMS ^Talk 20:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Dependencies

• As a note, the IP proposing in this section was blocked as a sock if that changes the result of any discussion or content. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

Should it be added under dependencies? We already have Cyprus on the list. There's no reason not to include Akrotiri and Dhekelia. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

How many articles do we have on Akrotiri and Dhekelia? Nightw 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Many tiny dependencies got quite few articles. But we recognise their existence and list them separately on this or other similar navboxes. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Our criteria for inclusion normally follows ISO 3166-1 unless there are enough articles to warrant adding another. Nightw 17:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Is its political status as a British dependent territory determined by ISO 3166-1? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Anomie⚔ 03:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To add Akrotiri and Dhekelia to the group for dependencies, in addition to Christmas Island, Cocos Keeling Islands, etc. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's more a policy matter since editors tend to insist to stick with ISO 3166-1, and effectively disregarding the actual political status of this territory. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Dependencies and other territories

Should it be shortened to dependent territories or simply dependencies? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No, as editors complain "But Hong Kong isn't dependent, it's part of China!" CMD (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a dependency of the People's Republic, as much as the Falklands, Gibraltar and the Isle of Man are to the UK, or Guam and Puerto Rico are to the US. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to establish any consensus, since few editors actually want to discuss on such a lesser-known topic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

BIOT

Should the BIOT be added? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, see A&D CMD (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Its code is IO, and its having articles such on its geography, government, commissioner (de facto head of state), police, airport, stamps, flag, and coat of arms. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

True true, I should be more awake, my apologies. Seems to fit our criteria then. CMD (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Someone should check uses and create any necessary redirects if redlinks were created. Anomie⚔ 14:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you add the "the" parameter too, btw? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want something else added, please start a new request and clearly specify what it is you are wanting done. I see nothing anywhere here saying what a "the" parameter would do. Anomie⚔ 00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BIOT requires the article "the" in front of it in titles, like Czech Republic. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Or like "the Republic of China", "the Cocos (Keeling) Islands", and so on in this same template. I've added the "the" in the same way as for those other countries. Anomie⚔ 03:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(outdent)

Thanks. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 12:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dependencies of which countries

Comparing with Template:Africa topic, shouldn't the dependencies' governing country be shown, thus: British Indian Ocean Territory (United Kingdom) * Christmas Island (Australia) * Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Australia) * Hong Kong (P.R. China) * Macau (P.R. China)? Goustien (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

no. The template is cluttered enough. --Merbabu (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It's far more elegant in this template. I think the Africa one should copy this. CMD (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldives

"Maldives" points to "The the Maldives". I think this is a typo and should be fixed by an administrator. Goustien (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Implementation of the sandbox, as asked for in the section above, should fix this. CMD (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

suffix parameter

In the doc, the suffix parameter is said to be different from the 2nd parameter (testcases). However they currently have no difference. I modified it in Template:Asia topic/sandbox so that it add a space when suffix is used but not the 2nd parameter. Also in the sandbox I changed all countries with an ISO code to {{i2c}}. Please update the template.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not good practice to use an protected or semi-protected template inside a fully-protected template, so I suppose we should fully protect Template:Iso2country if we make this change. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why Template:Iso2country is used in the first place. So now I make the sandbox contains no more i2c by manually replacing them. Would this make it better? --Quest for Truth (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realise it already used this template. I don't really know which is better. I can deploy the sandbox now if you wish. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. I think it is unnecessary to use Iso2country. Please deploy the sandbox. --Quest for Truth (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, deployed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan and Republic of China

Currently the template is set out so clicking on Republic of China (Taiwan) is set out like this [[The Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]], wouldn't it be better so it was changed to [[Taiwan|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] as most articles on Taiwan use the name Taiwan not Republic of China e.g. Transport in Taiwan, the wikipedia article on Tawian uses the name Taiwan and also it does not affect the name visible on the template it just stops it linking into redirect pages.C. 22468 Talk to me 17:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be at this point. Quite a few articles have moved, and the main article has as you said shifted. CMD (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

All of the uses I've seen of this template so far have been clearly talking about Taiwan and its history. They do not talk about the 1911-1949 ROC (which would be a reason to use "Republic of China" instead of "Taiwan". The sort should certainly follow Wikipedia conventions and use "Taiwan", but the template itself should be showing "Taiwan" as the name of the country (the article for both the country and the state is called "Taiwan"). We should be using [[Taiwan|Taiwan]] Readin (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

2 small suggestions

1. Shouldn't this box be headed "Names of Asia" rather than "Name of Asia" since it contains a long list of names? 2. Shouldn't the country Myanmar be listed as that is its official name now and was its original name until the British renamed it Burma after the largest indigenous group? At the moment the only recognition it receives is as Burma (Myanmar).

Thanks for your consideration,

Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Each link is separate, the other links are not names of Asia, but parts of it. Burma is listed as such due to the article being at Burma. When that changes, so will this. CMD (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 July 2012

Please change "[[Taiwan|Republic of China (Taiwan)]]" to "[[Taiwan|Taiwan]]" as described in the Taiwan and Republic of China section above. Readin (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Actual edit to achieve this would be changing [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Taiwan{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] to [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Taiwan{{{2| {{{suffix|}}}}}}|Taiwan]] -- CMD (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan should be put after South Ossetia, due to the alphabetical order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.113.28 (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Done Anomie⚔ 21:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are certain nations here?

• I'm a little perplexed as to why Cyprus & Northern Cyprus, Georgia, Abkhazia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and South Ossetia are considered Asian states? Cyprus & Northern Cyprus are considered European. Georgia and it's disputed territories are all the more perplexing as it is considered Asian while Armenia & Azerbaijan, her neighbouring states, are not considered Asian. Thesmartstag (talk) 12:43, 12 July 2012 (CAT)

Armenia and Azerbaijan are on the template. See Borders of the continents#Europe and Asia for information on the definitions of Europe and Asia. Warofdreams talk 11:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• My bad. Thank you for the link, clears that up for me. Thesmartstag (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2012 (CAT)

Edit request on 11 August 2012

2 links can be fixed - Turkey to List_of_waterfalls_of_Turkey and Serbia to List_of_waterfalls_in_Serbia

welsh (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Question: This template does not mention waterfalls. Where are you seeing a problem? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disabling {{edit protected}} until clarified, with a note that links using templates such as this one will sometimes have to go through a redirect if the target article is not named to a standard. Anomie⚔ 17:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 August 2012

I would like an administrator to help me add the article Orthodox Christianity in Lebanon within the

.

Thanks in advance.

Goodshopedg (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done, but it didn't need an {{edit protected}} - all that was needed was to create the redirect Orthodoxy in Lebanon --Redrose64 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Template: List of airports in Asia

Hi, in the above template can someone change the wikilink Palestine with Palestinian territories? Currently is showing as red but there is an article List of airports in the Palestinian territories. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sal73x (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2012

allow hyperlink on Taiwan/ROC so that it may link up with Names of China (like for China/PRC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_china

StephenWalker97 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)SWalk

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:55, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 September 2012

Bypass Palistine rederict per WP:BRINT.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant for 1948 Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Now that I take a better look at this, Palestine for 1949-present needs to link to "YEAR in the Palestinian territories" and 1918-1948 needs to link to "YEAR in Mandatory Palestine" to comply with WP:BRINT. Sorry I wasn't clear at first, I thought this template was just for 1948 in Asia. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk)

 Not done. This template can't take that into account. In this case the redirect probably has to remain. CMD (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian territories

In addition to the question above (about List of airports in the Palestinian territories), the link to Geography of Palestine is now to a disambiguation page. The correct link is Geography of the Palestinian territories. Is there some way to fix some of the topic article links? A very quick search shows a variety of 'of Palestine' articles and a variety of 'of the Palestinian territories' articles - I don't know how the template would distinguish between the two. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 11:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's too much need for the template to distinguish between the two. The Palestine article is about the Israel/Palestine region, not any country, and this template is about countries. The article about the West Bank and Gaza Strip is Palestinian territories. Other article's names tend to follow this president, so I recommend making "Palestine" in this template link to "Palestinian territories", or if this would not be possible, simply change "Palestine" in this template to change to "Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This should fix it. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It will also probably mess up many other links, as well as moving away from the point of its inclusion which is as an unrecognised state. CMD (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is the possibility of the State of Palestine, but I'm guessing that that that would mess up more links (e.g. "Geography of the State of Palestine", Foreign relations of the State of Palestine) then "the Palestinian territories" (e.g. Foreign relations of the Palestinian territories), but far less then "Palestine"(e.g. "Palestine", "History of Palestine").

I would guess that "the Palestinian territories" would have the least messed up links, but is does rase CMD's concern. "the State of Palestine" doesn't rase CMD's concerns. Both, PT and SOP messed up links could be taken care of with redirects, but "Palestine messed up links largely can't, that name is largely used for articles about the region, not the country. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

My recommendation to make this link to "the Palestinian territories" stands. There would be allot of red-links here, and wouldn't we want most of them to be created with "in the Palestinian territories" in the title. This is about primarily about topics in Palestine, i.e. the West Bank and Gaza Strip, i.e. the Palestinian territories. Most of the "messed up links" such as Foreign relations of the Palestinian territories probably already redirect to the correct page, and would do so regardless of what we do with this template. Doing this wouldn't mess up many other links, it would fix them. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The damage from turning that into a disambiguation page isn't anywhere near as bad as it sounds because we don't have an article on the Geography of the Palestinian territories. That page just redirects to Palestinian territories. I didn't know this template linked here when I disambiguated it, it doesn't seam worth changing back. This template should probably be changed to match the naming conventions instead of the other way around. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The template can not be altered to fit a specific link very easily. It currently just exists as a basic framework for all Asian countries. There is perhaps the option of adding code that allows the template to specify "Palestinian territories" instead of Palestine when asked, but this is beyond my ability. CMD (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: To clarify, we can change the template so that all the "X of Palestine" and such are changed to "X of the Palestinian territories" or whatever other title is determined by consensus. Every one of them. Redirects might have to be created. Feel free to re-enable the {{edit protected}} once you've decided exactly what to change it to and you are prepared to check all articles using this template to create any necessary redirects. For testing purposes, I've sandboxed the necessary change to make all the links point to "X of the Palestinian territories" and so on. Anomie⚔ 03:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I've put in a bot request that should take create all "X of the Palestinian territories" to "X of the Palestinian National Authority" redirects that don't already exist (that should be done regardless of what we do with this template). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget there are other patterns, like "X in the Palestinian territories". You'll have to look into the uses of this template to find all the permutations. Anomie⚔ 17:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, feel free to add any other appropriate patterns I've missed to the bot request page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There are 6411 articles using this template. How do we check all of them? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Carefully? Anomie⚔ 03:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

We'd need at least 100 people to be able to carefully check 6411 articles, especially considering all the Palestine topic articles that don't exist, and would be legitimate redlinks. Unless I've misunderstood you, or there's some automated way to do this, it's not practical to to carefully check 6411 articles. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's how Palestine articles are usually named in my experience. Articles about the West Bank and Gaza are named "of/in the Palestinian territories" with the major exception of articles related to the PNA government, which are named "in/of the Palestinian National Authority". Articles related to the Palestinian people use "Palestinian" in their title. "Palestine" is usually used for articles about the Palestine/Israel geographic region, Mandatory Palestine (tough MP articles sometimes have "Mandatory Palestine" instead of "Palestine" in their titles), or things with "Palestine" in their proper name. As far as I know this isn't an officially written down naming convention, this is just the way these articles are named, and there are a few exceptions.

Linking to "the Palestinian territories" or "the Palestinian National Authority" would probably work (tough I prefer PT, it'd definitely work). Linking to "the state of Palestine" would be a bad idea because very few articles use this in their name. Leaving the template as is (Linking to "Palestine") definitely wouldn't work. Palestine points to some pages about the Palestine/Israel region instead of the country (e.g. Palestine, History of Palestine). Even the links that are working are only working because of redirects (e.g. Prostitution in Palestine). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Much of the time this template works through redirects. All it does is provide a basic base template that can be easily changed to provide links to similar topics. (As a result, there's no reason to use this template as a plain standalone, so there's no reason it should ever link directly to the Palestine article on any article space.) We're not going to escape redirects in this area no matter what is chosen, and "Palestine" is definitely the simplest to link to. However, if it is the case that it would be better to change, than it should probably be "the Palestinian territories", which covers more or less the same area as the declared State of Palestine anyway. I reckon it should still appear as a pipelinked "Palestine" in the template though, as that's the state name being referred to. CMD (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

This should definitely appear as a pipelined "Palestine" (if possible). In my experience it's the normal procedure to use a pipelined "Palestine" to link to "Palestinian territories", when the context specifies that "Palestine" would mean the WB/GS, and this is definitely one of those times. Per WP:BRINT, using redirects to make templates work is problematic, but it looks like we don't have much choice here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we've decided on "the Palestinian territories". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"the Palestinian territories" would probably have the fewest messed up links and what few there were could easily be taken care of with rederects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you manage to get a bot to take care of creating the appropriate redirects? And do you know roughly how many redirects would be affected? I'm a bit wary of making this change, as from the above discussion I have no idea about the number of pages that would have blue links turned to red links because of this change. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The stranded practice is for pages such as Politics of the Palestinian National Authority to have redirects from Politics of the Palestinian territories, so most, if not the vast majority of those redirects should already exist. The ones that don't exist can easily be created. As for a bot, red tape is getting in the way that, but once this change is in place, that red tape should go away. Right now it's linking a to a number of the wrong articles (articles about the Palestine region instead of the WB&GS), and we can't fix those be creating redirects. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just created all redirects for "X of the Palestinian territories" to "X of the Palestinian National Authority" and "X in the Palestinian territories" to "X in the Palestinian National Authority". They weren't as common as I thought they were, but there all there now. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

Iraqi Kurdistan should be added to "dependencies and territories" and a separate semi-autonomous region within Iraq. There are already plenty of articles on Iraqi Kurdistan associated with this template, including Economy of Iraqi Kurdistan, Polygamy in Iraqi Kurdistan, List of universities in Iraqi Kurdistan, Iraqi Kurdistan national football team etc.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

We list Hong Kong and Macau, which like Iraqi Kurdistan are autonomous regions. Is there some reason to list those two but not Iraqi Kurdistan? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau are sometimes listed with dependent territories, and have a very unique status. They have their own ISO 3166-1 codes, and sometimes even their own membership of international organisations, such as Hong Kong in APEC. Iraqi Kurdistan does not seem to be any more unique than many autonomous areas. CMD (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Egypt

Since when is Egypt part of Asia? -- YPNYPN ✡ 02:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Since 1982, when it occupied the Sinai Peninsula, which is in Asia rather than Africa. Shrigley (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Changing Palestinian territories to State of Palestine

Considering the recent recognition of the State of Palestine as an observer state, there should be an appropriate change in the template Palestinian territories->State of Palestine (or simply Palestine). Previous related articles are all messed up - some saying Pt and some PNA, thus changing them all to the updated State of Palestine will fix it. Of course new articles on politics, demographics, geography etc. should be created for State of Palestine, but i'm ready to begin the work.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

One UN vote does not mean we should reshuffle a huge amount of our articles around. We report on political changes, but do not write our articles around them. There's been a State of Palestine since 1988, it wasn't simply created in the past week. This is a navigational template meant to direct readers to articles on the topic in question, whether they be titled "Geography of the State of Palestine" or "Demographic of the Palestinian territories", or so on. The recent discussion just above noted that "Palestinian territories" is the most common title. If that changes, bring it up here again. CMD (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles about the Palestinian territories ("West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip") are usually located at "Palestinian territories" titles (e.g. Economy of the Palestinian territories, Political status of the Palestinian territories, unless the page is more related to the Palestinian Authority ("organization [...] to govern the West Bank and Gaza Strip"), (e.g. Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority). I don't see anything messed up about that.

With the resent RM of Palestine the "Palestinian territories" titles may soon change to "Palestine" but why would that impact "Palestinian National Authority" titles? the Prime Minister of the PNA is not the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine. Like Soman said "To be clear, the State of Palestine [...] and the Palestinian National Authority are not the same. The PNA is an organ for local self-governance, but not a state. It is subordinate to the PLO, and founded several years after the declaration of independence of the State of Palestine. The UN General Assembly vote in itself changes nothing regarding the PNA."Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

On a PNA note, while it may be a legally separate entity from the State of Palestine, outside of that legal distinction there's not much real separation. The Prime Minister of the PNA is the same person as the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine. His designation of one of the other depends on a political decision by whoever is referring to him. CMD (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You sure about that? "Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority" shows 4,370,000 results while "Prime Minister of the State of Palestine" shows 4. The President of the State of Palestine and the President of the Palestinian National Authority are pretty much the same but as far as I know there is no Prime Minister of the SOP. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The PNA is the only recognised Palestinian governing body. Due to this, it is the effective governing body of the State of Palestine, as endorsed by the PLO (which also has the same head), virtually universally held as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Any country recognising Palestine hold relations with the PLO, and through that to the PNA. All current views of the path to a complete two-state solution involve Israel giving over complete power to the PNA. CMD (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't care your political opinions, as long as they are not bound in WP:RS, the PNA was upgraded to be an observer state in the UN named "State of Palestine" - check those sources:

The United Nations General Assembly on Thursday endorsed an upgraded U.N. status for the Palestinian Authority CNN

The Palestinian Authority is now a non-member observer state. It was previously a non-member observer. The new status will allow it access to some UN international agencies and to sign treaties. CBS

The Palestinian Authority circulated a draft resolution to U.N. member states on Wednesday that calls for upgrading its U.N. status to that of an "observer state" REUTERS

Abbas will formally request that the UN General Assembly upgrade the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) status from observer to nonmember state on November 29. RT

Hope it makes it clear.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

None of those sources imply the PNA no longer exists. Sources still discuss the PNA in the present tense. They do however show the point that the PNA and the State of Palestine are the same. CMD (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The PNA and the State of Palestine are not the same, on the contrary. They have separate governments, separate presidents, separate parliaments. The only thing they have in common is that both are established by the PLO. Japinderum (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever difference there is is one that sources are obviously happy to consider unimportant. To say that the only thing they have in common is the PLO connection completely ignores reality, where they, as the sources show, are often considered parts of the same entity. CMD (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

We should not use sources by confused authors who don't care about details. Reality is that the government of the State of Palestine is the PLO-EC per decision of the State of Palestine parliament, the PNC. Reality is that those are a different government from the PNA Cabinet and a different parliament from the PNA parliament, the PLC. Reality is that the link between the PNA and the State of Palestine is exactly through the PLO, to whose structures those are accountable and by whom those were established. Of course the PLO ensures smooth interaction and synchronous actions of the two, so that the set goals are achieved. Nobody claims otherwise, but that confuses some onlookers. For example:

Your statement "The Prime Minister of the PNA is the same person as the Prime Minister of the State of Palestine" is incorrect - there is no position "Prime Minister of the State of Palestine". Japinderum (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the topics the template is utilized for deal with geographic/territorial ("Palestinian territories" suits those cases) or administrative (PNA administering Areas A and B of the Palestinian territories suits those cases) issues - much less of the topics deal with diplomatic matters ("State of Palestine" suits those cases). So, it seems "Palestinian territories" will result in the least number of redirects. That's why it's better to keep the status quo. In any case - when the topic of the article is about the PNA, the State of Palestine or something else - a navigational redirect can be created (as it is in multiple cases already), no problem. Japinderum (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree for the status quo for now - let's wait several weeks, and see if there are significant changes regarding PNA/SoP.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - this discussion is continued below as a proposal, following notable changes on the ground.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

State of Palestine

Considering the recent upgrade of the Palestinian National Authority to become a non-member observer state on Nov. 29, 2012 (officially the State of Palestine); the official UN designation change of "Palestine / PLO" to "State of Palestine" (Dec. 20, 2012) and this week's decree by Palestinian President Abbas to change all Palestinian institutions to become "State of Palestine" institutions ("President Abbas signed a presidential decree changing the name of the Palestinian Authority to the “State of Palestine,” following the Palestinians’ upgraded status at the United Nations as a non-member observer state." [1]), with the change already taking place (see Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics [2]) i propose to change the target of "Palestine" from "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine" (currently, the template says "Palestine", but redirects to "Palestinian territories"). Please vote support or oppose.Greyshark09 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong venue If the intent is to request that all Palestinian territories titles be moved to State of Palestine titles, the talk page of this template is the wrong venue. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) I think would be the place, maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not the request.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

In many cases, the "Pt" titles can stand alone, with no need to rename them. Palestinian territories is relating to post-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip or post-1993 Palestinian Authority areas. State of Palestine was created in 1988, recognized as non-member state in 2012 and replaces all previous titles from 2013. Hence in some cases Pt or PNA articles should remain as is.Greyshark09 (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My point stands, even if the request is only to move some of them, this is the wrong venue.

Also you keep going around Wikipedia asserting that Palestinian territories is a vague and dubious term, yet your assertion has been rejected by 6 editors (including me). Your assertion also contradicts the long standing lead of Palestinian territories has described the PT as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and, the overwhelming majority of RS, which describe the PT as consisting of the West Bank and Gaza Strip [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. At this point this seems like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I haven't read State of Palestine lately to see what the article and legal developments are per High Quality WP:RS. Why not bring this generally issue to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues where you are more likely to get more people with more insight into the issue and a broader perspective it. If it's still the two of you going back and forth... gets me dizzy :-) CarolMooreDC 22:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no "upgrade of the Palestinian National Authority to become a non-member observer state". It's the PLO delegation whose title was changed into SoP delegation. The decision of PNA president to rename it is related to that event, but not related to the proposal here. The 2012 UNGA resolution is about UNGA observer delegation, not about Wikipedia articles and especially not about navigation templates. The resolution doesn't use the word "upgrade" neither, but it seems people want to "upgrade" it where they can, in Wikipedia. The following is also wrong: "State of Palestine...replaces all previous titles from 2013" - it may replace some official titles in the UN or PNA, but Wikipedia article names are decided on their talk pages and not at the UN or PNA. That's especially true for "Palestinian territories" article, which describes has a totally different topic (territorial/geographical) from articles titled SoP or PNA (political creations). SoP may claim oPt and PNA may operate there, but they are not the same. The proposal of this section was already discussed above: Most of the topics the template is utilized for deal with geographic/territorial ("Palestinian territories" suits those cases) or administrative (PNA administering Areas A and B of the Palestinian territories suits those cases) issues - much less of the topics deal with diplomatic matters ("State of Palestine" suits those cases). So, it seems "Palestinian territories" will result in the least number of redirects. That's why it's better to keep the status quo. In any case - when the topic of the article is about the PNA, the State of Palestine or something else - a navigational redirect can be created (as it is in multiple cases already), no problem. Japinderum (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• The oPt is by no means a "[State] with limited recognition" as it is not a state. Palestine should of course link to the state, not the land. I see no need for a discussion for a factual matter such as this, just fix the mistake. Though, this template has multiple problems due to the fact that the divisions in it are not mutually exclusive to one another. Taiwan and Israel, and a few others to a lesser extent could fit under both of the first two headings. Sepsis II (talk) 13:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

To adapt CMD's above statement , All this template does is provide a basic base template that can be easily changed to provide links to similar topics. As a result, there's no reason to use this template as a plain standalone, so there's no reason it should (within the main namespace) ever link to the Palestinian territories article. Much of the time this template works through redirects, we want the link that will result in the least number of redirects per WP:BRINT. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable excuse to ignore a UN observer state. It is far more important to present the actual entity, rather than some loosely defined area. Links can be quickly fixed or added. Quiet few already exist for the state, rather than for Pt.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason the template should (within the main namespace) ever link to the Palestinian territories article, and as I said above your assertion that PT is a "loosely defined area" was rejected. There are only a few All pages with titles containing State of Palestine, and even if All pages with titles containing Palestinian National Authority were given SOP titles most of those articles are about some PNA office, there are only a few topic articles there. Topic articles are far more commonly located at All pages with titles containing Palestinian territories

• Comment Greyshark invited everyone who participated in so we're going to get allot of people who don't know what a topics template is, and might think that this is just a list of countries in Asia or something. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a Wikipedia articles navigation template, it's not a list of sovereign states. This nav.template is used in many more territorial/geographical articles where a link to Palestinian territories is direct, without a redirect. Those are the majority of cases. For the few cases, where the article title is different (SoP, PNA, PLO or whatever), a redirects are already in place (or can be made if needed). Japinderum (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cities of Asia?

How come there is Template:List of cities in Europe, but when I click "V" in similar template about Asia, I get here? I just checked all continents, and Europe is the only one with a separate template for cities. Nice indeed. 82.141.95.124 (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Etiquette in Thailand link

The link Etiquette in Thailand redirects to Etiquette in Asia#Thailand. Please fix this.--Auric talk 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

How's it broken, is there a better target? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

Remove Egypt from the list of Asian countries. It's considered to be in Africa. Only a small part of it lies in Asia. Seiyko (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done See discussion above on this topic. If this is to be done, it needs to be the subject of a full discussion, not just an edit request. Dana boomer (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

change link Parliament_of_Bangladesh to Jatiyo_Sangshad

BijoyChakrabarty (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry, this isn't possible due to limitations in the design of this template. Perhaps it will be possible if someone rewrites it in Lua, but for now I'm afraid we can't avoid using the redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh

For some reason the Nagorno-Karabakh link is directing to the Nagorno-Karabakh region, but it should redirect to Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic). I guess this is for technical reasons to make the "in Nagorno-Karabakh" and "of Nagorno-Karabakh" titles work, but this is incorrect and solvable with redirects.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction - requested change should be to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic; relevant wikilinks were fixed and redirects created.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Hi there. Can you give an example of a page where the template outputs the mistaken link? It's hard to know whether it is possible to fix it or not without having more context. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: If the title is changed from "Nagorno-Karabakh" to "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" then it would require the following fixes:

National Assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh -> National Assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh RepublicNational Assembly of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic

and other similar redirects.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: (or rather, done and then undone again). I think that to make this work properly that you would need to add a "the" - i.e. make it "the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic", rather than just "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic". This is because titles like "politics in Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" are grammatically incorrect. More importantly, I'm not sure how many links this would break. Could you go through the list of templates that transclude this template and make redirects for all the relevant titles? We can update the template after we are sure that it won't break any links. Also, you didn't give me any examples of pages where the current behaviour of the template is incorrect. I want you to show me a page that is broken. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You got a good point, it should be "the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" indeed; i will go through the relevant titles and fix it.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be ok now; several dozen links were updated.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 17 July 2013

There is a version in the sandbox that will update the "state" parameter to match that in the directions at Template:Navbox#Setup parameters. Please update this navbox, thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the fix! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request April 29, 2013

Please change "[[the People's Republic of China|People's Republic of China]]" to "[[China|China]]". Many articles are moved to the name "China" since the consensus to move the country article China. 204.140.158.204 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Had a look through the China article, and it seems there is a majority of subarticles that use China rather than People's Republic of China, although not nearly all. The IPs idea makes sense. CMD (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Support articles are supposed to be at "China" unless there is some reason for them not to be, and the few remaining disambigs this would link to are just old staggers that need to be moved to a "(disambiguation)" title anyway. This also causes links to some incorrect articles such as History of the People's Republic of China when it should link to History of China. Lastly, Taiwan is listed as "[[Taiwan|Taiwan]]" not "[[the Republic of China|Republic of China]]"Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm it seems to still be generating PRC links - see for example Template:Foreign relations of Asia where it's definitely "of China". This is one of the hardest bits to correct - anyone know what the problem is? Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 10 September 2013

Add Flag of the Bangsamoro Republik to unrecognized countries list of the Flags of Asia template as per List of states with limited recognition--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed [Soffredo] 11:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that the meaning of the request is adding Bangsamoro Republik to unrecognized states as "the Bangsamoro Republik"; I'm doubtful however that it is the right time, since the crisis in the Philippines concerning the separatist creation of Bangsamoro is still ongoing and we may see quick dissolution like in the case of Azawad.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not seeing a consensus for inclusion yet, per Greyshark and the discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states#Bangsamoro Republik. If there is a consensus for inclusion after further discussion, please reactivate this request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

I'm currently working on the topic of Iraqi Kurdistan and i've become convinced it should be added to "Dependencies and other territories". The Kurdistan region of Iraq is an exceptional case of autonomy, with all national symbols and independent government and military forces. Though officially still considered a part of federal Iraq, it enjoys complete separation from the central system of Iraq. Sources generally refer to the Kurdistan region (aka Iraqi Kurdistan) as a separate entity (see [14],[15],[16]). Herewith requested and i'm ready to analyze and fix all relevant wikilinks associated.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan does function autonomously, but do sources list them along with the other areas we currently list? CMD (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether Iraqi Kurdistan can be compared with other examples of dependencies and territories, such as Hong Kong, Macau and the rest. From the first glance the wikipedia pages look very similar, but let's go to sources, like official KRG offices [17]. The UN apparently do openly refer to Iraqi Kurdistan in documents - for example see the following report on Syrian refugees [18][19]. Hong Kong and Macau are also described as having a high degree of autonomy; same is relevant for Iraqi Kurdistan region - recent reports of Kurdish 2013 elections indicate that (Iraqi Kurdistan enjoys a high level of autonomy from Baghdad, and the regional parliament has passed laws on a wide range of issues.Iraqi Kurds go to polls as oil-rich region seeks greater autonomy). The fact that Kurdistan region has its own institutions and army and has recently become practically independent economically - all indicate its increasingly high-level of autonomy: certainly no less than Hong Kong and Macau.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong and Macau are officially separate governments, does Kurdistan have such a status? I don't find the argument that Iraqi Kurdistan is mentioned on UN documents to be greatly convincing, as many areas no doubt are. I would prefer that external sources make such comparisons before we do. Perhaps run an RfC on this? CMD (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the legitimacy of separate Iraqi Kurdistan's government (the KRG) is bound in the 2005 Iraqi transition law in article 53 - "(A) The Kurdistan Regional Government is recognized as the official government of the territories that were administered by the that government on 19 March 2003 in the governorates of Dohuk, Arbil, Sulaimaniya, Kirkuk, Diyala and Neneveh. The term “Kurdistan Regional Government” shall refer to the Kurdistan National Assembly, the Kurdistan Council of Ministers, and the regional judicial authority in the Kurdistan region." [20].Greyshark09 (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

See also the following academic assessments - The Future of Kurdistan in Iraq; Iraqi Kurdistan: The internal dynamics and statecraft of a semistate‏; The Kurds of Iraq: Ethnonationalism and National Identity in Iraqi Kurdistan.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware that the Iraqi Kurds are vigorously and effectively flaunting their self-rule, but what I haven't seen is a considerable body of sources that place this as equal to the two systems setup of the SARs. That paper you provided equating Kurdistan with other "semistates" is a good step in that direction, although I'm hesitant to take one paper to represent a developing body of literature. Are there particular quotes from the two books you provided that run along these lines, or other similar papers? It's an interesting situation, definitely. CMD (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me indeed the RFC would be a good place for this discussion - opened at Talk:Iraqi Kurdistan.GreyShark (dibra) 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The RfC is issued, you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 11:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Please reactivate this request when you have a consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 11 November 2013

Create Foreign relations of Macau template NOW. 6:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.101.129 (talk)

I don't think it belongs here, this template does not link to the foreign relations articles for any other country. Am I mis-understanding your request? As a dependency of China, does this article even exist? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

Please replace the following lines...

| group1 = [[List of sovereign states|Sovereign<br /> states]]

| group2 = [[List of states with limited recognition|States with limited<br /> recognition]]

| group3 = [[Dependent territory|Dependencies]] and<br /> other [[Territory (country subdivision)|territories]]

with, respectively,

| group1 = [[List of sovereign states|Sovereign states]]

| group2 = {{longitem|[[List of states with limited recognition|States with limited<br/>recognition]]}}

| group3 = {{longitem|[[Dependent territory|Dependencies]] and<br/>other [[Territory (country subdivision)|territories]]}}

...so the group names match those in other, similar "[somewhere] topic" templates.

Thank you, 213.246.92.142 (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done Technical 13 (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing territory wikilink

Can the wikilink for territories be removed? It shouldn't be there, as it links to a specific political designation, while it is used here as a general term. CMD (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. I'll be watching to make the change when your request is clear. Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies.

| group3 = {{longitem|[[Dependent territory|Dependencies]] and<br/>other [[Territory (country subdivision)|territories]]}}

should be changed to

| group3 = {{longitem|[[Dependent territory|Dependencies]] and<br/>other territories}}

Regards, CMD (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, so I followed the link soup CMD and would like to know what you think about changing it to:|group3=Other [[Dependent territory|dependent territories]] instead. It is much shorter and would now contain a link to the full (pluralize) pagename to be less ambiguous. I've put it in the Template:Asia topic/sandbox to review on the Template:Asia topic/testcases page. Happy editing! Technical 13 (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

There's semantic debate over whether HK and Macau are technically dependent territories, as dependent territories isn't simply defined. The "other territories" inclusion is the simple fix to that. CMD (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Applied my alternative fix and think it looks more grammatically correct and neater. Let me know if there is an issue and it can be adjusted. Technical 13 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 29 December 2013

120.28.127.179 (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Empty request... Technical 13 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Not my request, but since it's here:

| group2 = [[List of states with limited recognition|States with limited<br />recognition]]

to

| group2 = {{longitem|[[List of states with limited recognition|States with limited<br/>recognition]]}}

please.

And, for the sake of (more) completeness, there's a similar need at Template:North America topic.

Thank you, 213.246.87.84 (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Done I've changed it to |group2 = [[List of states with limited recognition|States with limited recognition]] instead and since it is all on one line, there is no longer a need for {{Longitem}}. Technical 13 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Fix links and redirects

 Done Template now realises if it's used incorrectly and bypasses redirects if so. CMD (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For these countries and regions. Link to main article names instead of redirects:

• Maldives
• Philippines
• United Arab Emirates
• Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
• Palestinian territories
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• For example currently Maldives links to "The Maldives". "The" is unnecessary and "The Maldives" is a redirect page. It should be replaced with "Maldives". Same for the other above links. --Zyma (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This template should never be presented as it is here. It is a shell template. "The Maldives" is linked to because this template is used for pages like "History of X", where for the Maldives, the Philippines, etc. requires a "the". CMD (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Then what about other links/names? Check them. We should link them to their main articles. --Zyma (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What other links/names? This template should never result in linking to the countries listed. The template for that is Template:Countries of Asia. CMD (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it should be smart enough to know if it is used wrong and presented as is without using the redirects. I'm working on a fix in the sandbox and have created testcases to see the results because the change can't break the existing function. Technical 13 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's clear! I don't know why you don't click on them?! I just say fix them. Click and see what I say. --Zyma (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I have it working properly on the /testcases page using the /sandbox version. CMD do you object to this change (and did I miss anything), and Zyma does it satisfy your request? Technical 13 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes Technical 13. This revision (current) of sandbox is what I want as a "link fixing". Do same edit on main version of template. --Zyma (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to once I hear back from CMD if there are no other objections. Technical 13 (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. After that, mark my request as "answered" plus "Done" or "Not done" status. As I said above, we should link to main articles not redirects. If my request still has issues, please send me a notification to my talk page. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: I don't really see the point of the change, but if it works it shouldn't hurt. My only worry would be increasing unnecessary code may make it harder for users to figure out how it works/how to edit it, but your code doesn't appear like it overcomplicates the issue. However, if we're going down the route of fixing incorrect usage, it'd be nice if somehow if it was placed in incorrectly, it simply redirected to Template:Countries of Asia, or notify the user or something similar. Come to think of it, a notification on this template saying "This template is not meant to be used without modification" might help. CMD (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

CMD, while I don't think that is a bad idea, I think it is a little too late to add such a thing to the template because as it stands there are already Pages transcluded on (7,008)... We could add an administration category to see how many are used improperly though, if you wanted to spend some time going through to fix them all... I'll make the change that is already in the sandbox for now... Technical 13 (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there'll be some clever way to have a program trawl the transclusions of this template to see where it is applied without modification. In fact, couldn't there be a way to make an if no suffix or prefix, redirect to Template:Countries of Asia, else continue with other programming? The shell note should be added anyway, that'd be a simple noinclude message on this page to help editors. CMD (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• CMD, there is no way to redirect (although it could probably be transcluded through, but that doesn't gain us anything) if based on the result of parser checks. So, it is all or nothing. I'll figure out the best way to detect misuse and create an administrative category to track those pages to be fixed and then add something that says not to use it in that way... I'm not sure why all of those templates aren't just merged into one template that can handle all of the conditions anyways to reduce the workload when an update needs to be made to one of them (so only one needs editing instead of four)... Technical 13 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Technical 13 and CMD, what do you do about my request? final decision? I think this request is discussed enough and it's time for result. --Zyma (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Zyma your request was already done I believe... At this point, it is just a matter of setting up a way to detect pages that are misusing this template, fixing them, and then adding preventive measures for future issues. Technical 13 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Then mark this request as "Done" and "answered". --Zyma (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Please add List of cities and towns in Nagorno-Karabakh.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC) Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done via redirect, List of cities and towns in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and List of cities in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic created. CMD (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

I propose deleting Nagorno-Karabakh from the template because there's no page to link to. Liquidmetalrob (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDLINK. This is a general template, and can be manipulated to reach many different pages. If they don't exist, perhaps they should be started. CMD (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per CMD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 February 2014

This template should really be cleaned up because it has tons of red links and looks pretty bad. Liquidmetalrob (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDLINK. This is a general template, and can be manipulated to reach many different pages. If they don't exist, perhaps they should be started. CMD (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: per CMD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)