Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe/Archive 2

Navigational templates
It is perhaps not that surprising that my removal of 15 navigational templates was reversed. But could we at least remove some of them? There are currently 19 of them in this article, and few of them provide any useful navigation aid. This is a list of European countries, so the need of navigation between those is already fulfilled by the article itself. With that said, is it really necessary to include the following:


 * Countries of Asia - this article is a list of European countries, right?
 * Channel Islands - eeeh? Les Dirouilles are a range of rocks to the North-East of Jersey. Is it really necessary to include a link to those rocks in this article?
 * Republics and autonomous provinces of the former Yugoslavia - this is one amoung many that lists a subset of the European countries. Should we really include all those?
 * Non-Aligned Movement - International organization with very few European members. I understand this can be useful in the articles about these coutries, but why here?
 * Nordic Council - another political subset of countries. Should we also provide a template for those countries participating in the Eurovision Song Contest?
 * - duplicates the list already in the article; serves no purpose here

The only two navigational templates that I think should be included are Lists of countries by continent, and perhaps Europefooter. Take a look at the other lists of countries for other continents. The only template you find there is the Lists of countries by continent. And the article on Europe only has four templates... --Kildor (talk) 07:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the templates are present because they were present in the articles that were merged into this one. That other lists of countries are without a complete set of navigation templates is not a reason to remove them from this list; it is a reason to add them to the others. Many of the templates are also present because the purview of the article does not allow for economic, political and further geographical definition of the countries listed.
 * Countries of Asia is present because some of the countries in the list are wholly or partially within the geologic continent of Europe.
 * Channel Islands more completely associates a group of countries in the list. If you have issue with the fact that Les Dirouilles are within the template, I suggest you take your concerns to the template itself.
 * Were the Eurovision Song Contest a political subset of countries, a template would be provided.
 * Cheers. The € • T/C 15:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say it is rather pointless to include every template that contains any European country. And I have no problem with the Les Dirouilles entry in the Channel Islands template. I simply do not understand why the template should be included here. --Kildor (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Names of countries in local languages
Interesting to see these, but I wonder about reliability given that the Scottish Gaelic name for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is simply wrong. I have noticed that Scottish Gaelic often appears in some kind of garbled form with fundamental grammatical errors that no speaker of the language could make. It would be great if Wikipedia had a designated panel of minority language monitors who could ensure that when such languages appear they do so according to their own conventions of spelling, syntax and grammar. Ceartachadh Gramair (talk) 10:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Ceartachadh Gramair 09/07/08
 * All of the native names of the countries in this list came from their respective Wikipedia articles. The only exception is that of the constituent languages of UK (besides english, of course). If you know of another form, please update the article. Are you a speaker of Scottish Gaelic? Cheers. The € • T/C 17:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Czech Republic
I think english long and short form of this entry are switched. English short form is Czechia, long form should be Czech Republic.
 * Thanks... it's been fixed. Cheers. The € • T/C 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Georgia
Georgia is not part of Europe and should be removed. The country lies South of the Strahlenberg border. --62.167.221.243 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

'Partially recognised republics, territories and regions'
This term is the non-sens.

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an independent state. Republic of Abkhazia is an independent state. Republic of South Ossetia is an independent state. Kosovo is a non-independent territory (UN protectorat).

And the Bosnia and Herzegovina is semi-sovereign state now, because there's the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina.Shadow Vogel (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * TRNC is recognized by one UN state. Abkhazia is recognized by one UN state. South Ossetia is recognized by one UN state. Kosovo is recognized by almost 50 UN states. Bosnia and Herzegovina is a recognized member of the UN. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's utterly absurd, sorry. 1 or 50 is not difference for international law. The territory receives "personnalité juridique", when it recognized by ONE state who has "personnalité juridique"(now it's UN states), since this monment territory is an independend state. Many states went through it.(the Netherlands, USA, USSR).

TRNS, Abkhazia and South Osetia have a souveraineté (they provide their law in their territory, they controle all territory, which they claim etc). But in BiH, the High Representative can use "veto law" about BiH government laws. Now BiH hasn’t the FULL souveraineté. Only limited. About Kosovo, there’s UN resolution N 1244, Kosovo named as UN protectorat, and only UN resolution can change this status, it’s not competence France or other countries. Protectorat is the non-independent state.

The UN member is not synonym the independent state. I think, wikipedia, who declared as free and neutral encyclopedia, should use correct titel, for example – UN states in Europe, and other states. And I don’t understand, why in list "Countries of Europe" has got Kosovo and has’t got TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Is it emotions or double standarts?Shadow Vogel (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just because of the volume of the recognition. No state that isn't involved in the conflict has recognised TRNC, South Ossetia or Abkhazia, while several not involved countries have recognised the independence of Kosovo. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"It's just because of the volume of the recognition" 1. international law hasn't got this postulat.

"No state that isn't involved in the conflict has recognised TRNC, South Ossetia or Abkhazia, while several not involved countries have recognised the independence of Kosovo" 2. international law hasn't got this postulat. But for example in near one-two week Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be recognised by Belarus, in near future Venezuella. Believe you that Nauru, who recognise Kosovo, knows where located Kosovo in map?

Dura lex, sed lex. Recognition TRNC, Abkhazia, South Ossetia is a legal act(in international law), recognition Kosovo is illegal, because resolution 1244 is active in moment recognition(and now too).Shadow Vogel (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If map in this page has Kosovo, it MUST have TRNC, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia too.Shadow Vogel (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What map? Hús  ö  nd  16:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This map: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-Europe2.png" It's double standarts. IMHO. Shadow Vogel (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just an image, created by a user and released to the public domain. What's the big deal with it? Hús  ö  nd  16:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's not a single action. For example: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_outlying_territories_by_total_area"; "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Countries_of_Europe". This list have Kosovo and Serbia's territory exclude territory of kosovar autonomy, but in this list hasn't Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And in many pages have this phenomenon. Why this pages not include TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Shadow Vogel (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably due to the number of recognitions. Kosovo has tens of states recognizing it as independent, including multiple Emglish-speaking countries (where are located most of the readers of this encyclopedia). The others are all recognized by a single country. The community has not supported changes to world maps in order to have them comply with those isolated recognitions. And on Wikipedia, the community decides everything. Hús  ö  nd  18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanx.Shadow Vogel (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland
Can editors please read Names of the Irish state before reverting the correction I made? Republic of Ireland is not a long form name of the country. The term is not in the constitution and only appears as a description in an Act.Yman88 (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As an editor, I have read Names of the Irish state when preparing this article. The original entry is reinserted with a note explaining the nature of the name. It is prudent so that researchers can determine the appropriate context, that the description be present. Cheers. The € • T/C 07:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the above statement as per this diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_European_countries&curid=9760905&diff=258245952&oldid=258206332. Fact is one of the key pillars of Wikipedia and it should not be ignored for your POV or OR. A long form name is a long form name and the country doesn't have one. Therefore none is the thing to show.Rownon (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is recognised. Fact is not being ignored, since the footnote clearly explains that the long form is a description. That is a fact. There is no POV on my part, but on yours, it seems. There is no OR in this article. Please refer to my comment above.Cheers. The € • T/C 04:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer me this. Is the Republic of Ireland the long form name of the country? Your answer will solve the problem here.Rownon (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Rownon is inciting an edit war by continuously reverting edits without consensus to suit Rownon's own point of view. If Rownon has an argument to present it should be done here, in the discussion page, and not in the edit summary of the article. Cheers. The € • T/C 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

To further clarify the Ireland long form name issue and why it is represented in the article as such, please see Republic of Ireland: "...its legal description "the Republic of Ireland" is sometimes used to differentiate the state from the island." To my knowledge, Ireland is the only country in this list, whose legal description is not also a part of its name. In order to be as complete as possible, the long-form name is restored so that researchers may have more determinate access to the context within which this issue exists. Footnotes, fully describing the status of the terms Republic of Ireland and Poblacht na hÉireann along with appropriate citations have been included to further illustrate the reasoning behind the inclusion of the legal term(s). It may be beneficial to observe that since this is a List of European countries the differentiation between the country of Ireland and the island of Ireland is necessary to facilitate a clear understanding. Cheers. The € • T/C 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One person can't edit war by themselves. You're the one reverting good edits without discussion. You can't just post and revert. Your pov is not consensus. It is just you. You say it yourself. It is not part of the name, therefore I removed it, leaving the footnotes for "researchers". It is much more worthwhile for a researcher to note that the country has no long form then sticking in something which is wrong and sticking a footnote which is they might not even read. That is misleading and POV and is not is not backed by any wikipedia policy. My edit is fact.21:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rownon (talk • contribs)


 * Please understand that the argument concerning the Ireland long name issue is not invalidated by virtue of a reversion. This is an issue which has a long history, not only in this article but in others, of dispute and debate associated with it. As a matter of assessment, POV is not being expressed in reversion; what is being expressed is a clear personal attack. Until this issue can be resolved by a third party, I would advise against further edits to [], which is closest to the original state of the article prior to the edit war.
 * Also understand that change from the original state of the article occurred without discussion first on the part of Rownon, so accusing me of reverting without discussion is proved false. Cheers. The € • T/C 21:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Greetings, I come to this talk page via the Third Opinion noticeboard. First, I'd like to commend all parties for bringing the discussion to our attention at Third Opinion. Hopefully, I will be able to assist.

The above dispute appears to revolve around the use of the term "Republic of Ireland" under the "Long form" section. It is argued that the "legal" description of the name should be used in the long form category in order to differentiate between the island of Ireland and the state Ireland. The opposing argument contends that Ireland has no official long form.

After reviewing the arguments, and verifying that the Irish Constitution does recognize the description: "Republic of Ireland", my opinion is that it is reasonable to use "Republic of Ireland" as long form (along with a footnote explaining that the use of the description is meant here to differentiate the state from the island). I believe this is reasonable in order to avoid confusion.

I hope that this opinion proves helpful in resolving this dispute. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your opinion; it has been implemented with the stipulations you suggest. Cheers. The € • T/C 20:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm verifying that the Irish Constitution does recognize the description: "Republic of Ireland". How exactly? The description doesn't appear in the constitution!Rownon (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes. Excuse me, I'd meant "The Republic of Ireland Act, 1948" which was referenced here. Many thanks for the clarification, and I hope I've helped you move closer to resolve. Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely the Irish constitution takes preference over a 50 year old act? The whole basis of the previous editors argument was that it appeared in the constitution, which it doesn't. If the constitution goes out of its way to not give a long form name like most countries do, then that has to be respected. Making ROI the long form name because it appears as a description in an unimportant 50 year old act is Original Research and POV, I'm sorry to say.Rownon (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather not become involved in the dispute, beyond my role as informal mediator. I will, though, explain my reasoning. I felt clarification was needed between Ireland and the island itself. Since a longer, descriptive form was codified: I believed it reasonable to include the descriptive (longer) name with a footnote. Again, this was my 3rd opinion; hopefully I eased the dispute.


 * If not, I recommend a Request for Comment as a second and slightly more formal avenue of dispute resolution. Again, kindest regards. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  I felt clarification was needed between Ireland and the island itself. Article title List of European countries. Is it really necessary? I acknowledge you don't want to enter the argument and a rfc is fair enough, but still given that it is proven that the irish constitution doesn't give any other title to the country other than ireland why is it still up for debate that the country has no official long form title? It's black and white to me. I'm guessing the rfc's will agree with me too.Rownon (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS People may find reading this useful.Rownon (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (undent) Thank you for providing the link material. I agree that this is a complicated issue. To be honest, I recommend asking for more opinions; in the interest of the most accurate encyclopedia as possible. Perhaps RfC would be a good resource for you? Or posting at the related WikiProjects; in order to procure additional views. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See Names of the Irish State. The "Republic of Ireland" is a description, not a name. "Ireland" is the name of the Irish state. Knowledge please, not ignorance. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland- Round II
The third opinion has been rendered and a change was conducted based on that rendering. You may go against the third opinion, but it only serves to circumvent the encyclopedic process. If reversions which are not concurrent with the third opinion continue, the validity of the dissenting argument is weakened. The suggestion for Requests for comment has been made. This will be sought in the interest of proper protocol. However, the findings of the third opinion should stand until such time when a request for comment can be fulfilled. Cheers. The € • T/C 02:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I further recommend notifying WP:IRELAND and WP:Europe of the discussion here. Perhaps they would be able to provide further clarification. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Ireland
Should the third opinion, found here: Talk:List_of_European_countries, stand? Cheers. The € • T/C 02:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Maps for micro states and small countries
Hi there,

The maps for the European microstates (also for fairly small countries like Cyprus) look almost the same; you can barely note where the country is located. I have taken the liberty and change slightly Andorra, as a test. Do you think that this tiny red dot in the article map shows a better location of Andorra? Feel free to revert my changes in order to go back to what it used to be. I just thought that something should be done to notice the country in the article, without having to go to the map itself.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Responding to above request for comment
I think being accurate is more important than trying to make something simple to understand. Whilst i totally understand and agree with the concerns people have about confusion between Ireland and the Republic of Ireland we need to look at the sources and follow them. Apart from trying to be helpful to avoid confusion i can see no reason why "Republic of Ireland" should be described as its long form title when everywhere else says it is not.

CIA world factbook does not say "Republic of Ireland" is the full title

http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm - clearly states that "Republic of Ireland" should not be used.

Names of the Irish state - says this issue has been resolved and that the United Kingdom government uses the term "Ireland" rather than "Republic of Ireland" now making the link to the 1948 Republic of Ireland act out of date and no longer valid.

There for to avoid inaccuracy i strongly suggest "Ireland" be listed as the full name of the state or leave the box blank like other countries who have identical long/short country names currently do. Also just to avoid any confusion there is a major debate (and recent ARBCOM involvement) in where the Republic of Ireland article belongs. At the moment it uses that title because Ireland is about the island of Ireland. Whilst the outcome is far from clear its likely that "Republic of Ireland" will not be the title of the article for very much longer. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:BritishWatcher. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia
Armenia should be re-coloured as light-blue. It's 100% located in Asia, the same as Cyprus.

Georgia and Azerbaijan are transcontinental, their territories are to be re-colored accordingly.--Mttll (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Armenia is already colored light-blue. All of Georgia is geologically part of Europe; lying just north of the continental divide. Only the portion of Azerbaijan contained south of the river Kura, is geologically part of Asia. The portion of the country divided by the border with Armenia is also part of Asia.

Yes, because I recolored Armenia as light blue. All of Georgia is, of course, not Europe. The border is supposed to be the Caucasus Mountains.--Mttll (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Names in the table
Is there some way to make the names of each of the countries a little larger in the boxes? The flags are clearly visible, but making the names stand out might help people find the country they want more quickly.Simplebutpowerful 12:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Turkey
Turkey is not an European country so it has no right to be listed as such. Maybe 5 % of its land is located in Europe, but this doesnt make Turkey an European country. Norum (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the footnote, which explains that Turkey's inclusion in this list is justified. The € • T/C 15:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the whole Turkey does not count as Europe. Only Turkish Tracia which is only 3% of the whole country's area, is actually in Europe. In all the other resources it is only the European part included (same goes for Kazakhstan). Turkish Tracia has an area of 23 600 km and a population of 12.5 mil people. This should be changed. Norum (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Turkey is still a transcontinental country, like Russia, with a significant, albeit small, portion in Europe, and with close cultural and historical ties to other European countries. No one is trying to deny the fact that Turkey is an Asian country. We're just saying that it doesn't preclude it from also being listed as a European country. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 07:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sicily & Sardinia
Dear friends, can you tell me why my addition of Sicily and Sardinia was removed? I'm not sure if someone has misunderstood, but Sicily and Sardinia are both autonomous regions. In fact, Sicily chose autonomy with Italy after being freed by the Allied forces during World War II. Sicily wanted independence but the Mafia and United States forced them to be part of Italy, so autonomy was accepted instead. I don't understand why Sicily and Sardinia don't fit on this list of "autonomous" states of Europe. Can anyone explain why my edit was reverted? Thank you in advance for your courtesty, --Siciliano69 (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a list of countries, not states, of Europe. The distinction is a little hard to recognise, but this case is similar to the UK in that like Wales, Scotland, England and N. Ireland, Sicily and Sardinia, while autonomous, may be defined as constituent parts of Italy proper, thus making the entire country of Italy. While I think your addition and preceding argument are not without merit, it simply does not fit within the frame of this list. Having said that, your reverted additions to this list might be better placed here: List of European autonomous states. You'll have to create the page, but that's where the fun begins! Feel free to use this list as a template to create yours and let me know if I can be of any help. The € • T/C 06:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your concise and courteous response - it's much appreciated. I like your idea of creating a new paged entitled List of European autonomous states.  I will get on that subito!  Cheers.  --Siciliano69 (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sealand
I removed Sealand beaucause it is a micronation and they cannot be included here. --213.22.64.157 (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the rule that says micronations cannot be included here? I agree however that non-recognised states should not be included. Partially recognised is fine. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgia and Armenia
Just wondering why Georgia and Armenia are treated differently. I would have thought Georgia is as "sociopolitically" European as Armenia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The map was changed for whatever reason, but it is fixed now. The € • T/C 09:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was looking at the intro to the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Georgia and Armenia are not European countries. \//\ 15:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Izzedine (talk • contribs) 15:01, 23 November 2009
 * By some definitions both Georgia and Armenia are either mostly or completely in Europe. By other definitions they are completely in Asia. I think both points of view are satisfied by the note specifying them as a part of the Transcaucasian Region. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 13:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:TRNC_location.png
This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:TRNC_location.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:TRNC location.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Move?

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

List of European countries → List of European countries and territories —
 * Following other similar articles: List of African countries and territories, List of Asian countries and territories, List of Oceanian countries and territories, List of North American countries and territories, List of South American countries and territories. For some reason this page is locked from moving (perhaps it should be unlocked also). Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Page List of European countries is currently under AfD at Articles for deletion/List of European countries, and moving will have to wait until the AfD is decided. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (I closed the AfD; there wasn't any basis for the nomination.) Move as nominated (for consistency and accuracy).--Kotniski (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge List of European countries by population
List of European countries by population should be merged into this article as the only different this that the other article has are the populations for each country. That I think could be merged into this article without much effort. And I really don;t see the point of having separate article for population. Also it could be made sortable as well. Gman 124 talk 03:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose that merge. In fact maybe the other way around I might even support it. That article's purpose is to discuss population, and this article to discuss them as sovereign states. No reason to merge them. Outback the koala (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Stongly oppose. The articles are about different things. We don't want a page cluttered up with everything about Europe in it. The other continents have two seperate articles for "countries and territories" and "countires by population" as well. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

❌ McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)