Template talk:Passports/Archive 1

Situation regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyrprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey to be placed in their appropriate continents
According to the Council of Europe's official website, the following nations are of the 47 member states: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Thus these nations are to be placed in the European group of this (the passports) template. Majalinno (talk)

HKSAR
I put HKSAR & MSAR passports under People's Republic of China. These passports have an issuing state of CHN (issued by the state People's Rpeublic of China) and the immigrations departments of HK & Macau are issuing these passports under the authorisation of the PRC Foreign Affairs Ministry. I would think HKSAR & MSAR are two categories of PRC passports.

Moreover, please note that the region of the "issuing state" may not be the same the the region of the "passport". For example, even British National (Overseas) passports are issued by the issuing state United Kingdom (an EU member), BN(O) passports are held by former colonial citizen in Hong Kong (Asia) and it does not confer any right of abode in the UK nor EU citizenship. However, since the issuing state is located in the EU, BN(O) is categorised as an European passport in this template, but not an Asian passport.

BN(O) 04:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

edits
Maldivian passport article doesn't exist so I removed it and why were all these under the UN section: Biometric · Internal · Machine-readable |  Alien · Camouflage · Hajj · Laissez-passer · Pet · World. Only Laissez-passer could fall into that UN category. --Avala (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo
Once again, the page about the Kosovar passport has been removed. Please understand that Kosovo issues its own passports. You or your country may not recognize their independence or their right to issue passports, but they do issue them. This is not a political statement, but a fact. So please stop removing it. Thank you for your understanding, (209.7.171.66 (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan
All three have to be either in Europe (for political or cultural reasons and since parts of Georgia's and Azerbaijan's territory are in Europe according to some) or they should be in Asia (where they are located per UN, Encyclopaedia Britannica, etc). I'll move Georgia to Asia since Armenia and Azerbaijan are already there. Alæxis¿question? 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Defunct passports
I added a few communists countries which no longer exist (Czechoslovakian passport, East German passport, Soviet passport, and Yugoslavian passport). I thought it would be interesting to have an article about their passports and free travel abilities (or lack thereof). After a week or so, no one really touched them, so I'm thinking about removing them. If any of you would be interested about contributing that would be great. If not, it's no big loss either. Just thought I'd bring up the idea. Thanks, (Einstein00 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Cyprus passport, Asian?
Classifying the Cyprus passport as "Asian" is patently ridiculous when one considers that it allows unlimited access to 30 European countries. Moreover, as a full member of the EU, Cyprus enforces EU regulations regarding everything from immigration control to the passport's burgundy design. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 07:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be in Europe together with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. They are all Council of Europe members. Otherwise moving only Cyprus to Europe will be unneutral. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  07:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with that, but Cyprus stays under "Europe". · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 07:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is of no relevance though to the question whether Cyprus is geographically Asian. sephia karta  |  di mi  14:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That hasn't stopped Cyprus from being included over at Template:Countries of Europe. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 19:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is not only on Template:Countries of Asia, but also on Template:Countries of Europe, because according to the footnote, it has socio-political connections with Europe. No one disputes that. But here we have to make a choice. And all I am saying is that we need to have a clear criterium on what to base that choice, otherwise we should do away with the categorisation into continents on this template altogether. sephia karta  |  di mi  00:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That could be an idea. After all, geographic categorizations are rather meaningless in what is essentially a political matter. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 03:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The United Nations geoscheme is the only way we could avoid conflicts. To use the current example: placing Cyprus in Europe is a completely subjective WP:OR decision made by the editors on this talk page. There are pages on Wikipedia where even deciding whether to list 5 or 10 countries in the article is unthinkable WP:OR, yet we don't seem to have problems recategorising countries based on a whim. I have no doubt no one would dispute Cyprus is an Asian country, and luckily, geography is not something which changes based on context. I would find it acceptable to use a footnote which notes that the nation partly lies in another continent, but I won't budge towards group nationalist mentality on this template. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This template is not geographical. It deals with rather political issue, passports and Cyprus is politically in Europe not Asia.--Avala (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that the term Europe is anything but geographical is WP:OR and idiotic. Saying something is politically or culturally European is only an abbreviated form of saying it is culturally or politically associated with the geographic entity that is Europe. Think about it this way. We deviate from the UN geoscheme for these countries. Then someone from Guyana comes along and moves his nation to North America, because it is a member of some trade bloc or pact or something. Soon a bunch of editors come along supporting his blantaly nationalist edits, but there will be nothing to stop them, because Azerbaijan is Asian, yet is a member of the Council of Europe and will be European on the template. Turkey is a predominantly Asian country, Azerbaijan is an entirely Asian country, and including them in Europe is incorrect, WP:OR and would just open the floodgates. Sticking to the UN is neutral, not OR, and overall stable. Changing nations around because we feel like it is nationalistic, WP:OR, and unstable. There is no contest here, even if it takes a couple of Guyanese editors this template will simply have to end up on the UN geoscheme. I know I repeat myself several times, but it's a very simple and obvious argument that I make here. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really Europe is only and ONLY geographical term? And anything else is idiotic? So Israel playing in UEFA cups, that's idiotic to you? Morocco being part of European Broadcasting Union is also idiotic? Nope, it's you who've got issues and the only one who thinks passports are related to geography. If Cyprus passport is essentially Asian, how come it shares the common design with European passports, not Asian? This is not a template about mountain peaks or anything like that but passports and Cypriot passports ARE European.--Avala (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Europe is, conventionally, one of the world's seven continents. Comprising the westernmost peninsula of Eurasia, Europe is generally divided from Asia to its east by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and by the Caucasus Mountains to the southeast. Europe is washed upon to the north by the Arctic Ocean, to the west by the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by the Mediterranean Sea, and to the southeast by the Black Sea and the waterways connecting it to the Mediterranean.".
 * Europe is the name of a continent. Regional blocs do NOT affect the location of nations. Case in point: French Guiana is a part of the European Union, yet it is located on South America. Another example: Morocco was denied membership in the predecessor to the EU because it was not in Europe. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * French Guiana is not a country like Cyprus or Azerbaijan. Its an overseas region of France and it's different from it. It's like a French colony. Furthermore, yes you are right, Morocco was denied membership in the predecessor to the EU because it was not in Europe but Cyprus became an EU member in 2004 and Turkey's membership bid was not denied and it is negotiating now. Because Cyprus and Turkey are European. ALL Council of Europe members ARE European, including Russia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Kazakhstan also has part of its territory in Europe but it is usually considered Asian. That's why we put it in Asia in the template. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  15:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is so unproductive. The problem is that these countries are politically and culturally both European and Asian, they're on the border. The problem is that there is no completely canonical geographical boundary. So if we want to categorise countries into continents, we only have two options. Either we go by geocultural arguments and categorise border states under both continents, or we pick one of the geographical classifications and stick with it, listing states under the continent where most of its inhabitants live. Either way, a priori we choose a clear criterium and then we apply it. sephia karta |  di mi  14:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean like the United Nations geoscheme? Hmmm, why didn't I think of that? (sorry, couldn't resist :) ) Listing them in both continents would not be productive. The template would be cluttered, and what about, as an example: France? There are internal regions of France located in both Americas, and dependencies scattered world wide. There is only one way to remain non-WP:OR and to ensure no valid accusations of bias from nationalistic editors, and that's the UN geoscheme. +Hexagon1 (t) 03:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I had read your suggesting it. I'm only hesistant to say that this is the geographical scheme we should use because it might be that we already have some other scheme established as the 'standard' elsewhere on Wikipedia. For this template I agree that including countries under several continents would cause unnecessary clutter. So either we use the UN geoscheme (or another one should we already have another standard) and list states under the continent where most of its inhabitants live, which probably means France and Russia under Europe and Cyprus and the Caucasian countries under Asia, or we drop the categorisation into continents altogether. sephia karta  |  di mi  17:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Realistically speaking there's only one option that we can take of those two, and that's the UN geoscheme. Not categorising into continents would be unwieldy and messy, it's already difficult to navigate this navigation template. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cyprus is a full member of EU, and Turkey is on negotiations. Turkey was a founding member of Council of Europe, and associate member of EEC. Both countries are considered European by European Union, and both countries are historically accepted as European countries. Turkey has quite much land on Europe, too. Khutuck (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We've decided to follow the UN geoscheme (as you can see above) as it's non-partisan and covers the whole world. If we used the EU it would be an arbitrary definition. A WP:OR definition. What gives the EU more authority to define geography than anyone else? What is the 'equivalent' organisation qualified to define the other parts of the world? If we used the EU definition we'd have French Guiana, Ceuta and Mellila in Europe. Think about it, the EU is a political organisation, and its membership is politically oriented. Oh, and as far as I know the EU has never called Turkey a European state, but a state with territory on Europe (don't quote me here though, and don't make this the main point of your response because it is little to do with mine, people sometimes have trouble separating the main point and the side points of the argument, especially if nationalism is involved, so rather than you wasting your time on an irrelevant response I felt I should state it). Turkey is 97% an Asian state. Cyprus is 100% an Asian state. The UN scheme is geographically sound and doesn't lend itself to accusations of POV. Oh, and BIG PS: do not revert to controversial versions when a consensus has been established, come to talk and discuss it, by all means, but reverts to disputed versions could easily get you in trouble (not from me, I'm not an admin, just a heads-up). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Turkey has land in both Asia and Europe, as you can see in maps. Turkey is geographically European (its most important city is in Europe), all sources state that it is historically European, and almost all articles in Wikipedia refer Turkey as a European country. Check this template, which can be a solution to our conflict. Also this template is not about geography, it is about passports. I believe the consensus above is using wrong data for the task. For example, Malta is geographically in Africa but UN says it is in Europe. Khutuck (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The arguments proferred by Hexagon are plainly ridiculous - what kind of authority has made the UN geoscheme is the blueprint for separating the world's continents? And on what grounds is the categorisation employed by the European Union arbitrary, an institution which is far more closely-based and possesses far more greater authority over its member states and candidate countries than the UN? Same goes for the categorisation employed by the Council of Europe, which has a similar remit such as the UN. There is also a laundry list of other countries' institutions that have been categorising Cyprus (and Turkey for that matter) into Europe for the last century and a half (such as the UK Foreign Office). Conclusion: there is no consistent literature or agreed approach on the categorisation of Cyprus in a specific continent. Given that it has been an EU member for the past 5 years, which means that it has fulfilled the enlargement criterion of being a "European country" for merely accession negotiations to begin, and it is thus treated as a country belonging to Europe by the entirety of countries and institutions which negotiate with the EU. It is also plainly preposterous to employ a comparison between other EU Member States' OVERSEAS territories and an actual EU member. FYI as well, given your passionate use of the UN geoscheme, you should also be aware that the UN classifies its peacekeeping mission to Cyprus (UNFICYP), as a mission in Europe - that's a quite "unrebuttable" source I would say. Given also the majority of responses here which tend to also provide convincing arguements as to why Cyprus should be included in Europe, I must say you are acting quite dictatorically. I thus re-include Cyprus in the Europe category (we should not even be discussing this to this length anyway) and the same should be done for Turkey which is also an EU candidate country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalpe (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Are the passports about geography?
Passports are not about geography, they are about politics. A man born in Azores is a citizen of Portugal, and so he will have a European passport, not an African one. So, I believe using geographical data for a political issue is a mistake. Turkey is in both Europe and Asia and a EU candidate, Cyprus is generally seen in Asia but a member of EU, and all the citizens of both countries are considered European, their passports should be considered European too. Khutuck (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As we discussed above, Europe is the name of a geographic place, not a political framework. One you've solved that and the many other problems raised above with any prospective classification other than the UN geoscheme please come back and elaborate. While it is understandable you wish to see your native Turkey in Europe (something which I don't sympathise with, why not be Asian and proud?) there is no stable WP:NPOV way of maintaining this other than deferring it to the UN, which - let's face it - is pretty qualified to indirectly arbitrate this. Sorry if I lack coherency, it's late and I am getting weary of this debate. If you have something new to raise feel free. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not living in Asia, I'm living in Europe (and UN will verify me :)) Transcontinental countries like Turkey is problematic in this passprt template, I'm adding footnotes to clarify this situation. Khutuck (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added footnotes, I hope this will solve the conflict. Khutuck (talk) 15:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur, I like the solution, bar your break with the EU geoscheme. You may be living in Europe but 97% of our countrymen don't, it would simply be erroneous to place Turkey in Europe. However, with the footnotes, I hope we've satisfied nationalist sentiment adequately to prevent a continuation of this ridiculous edit war. I honestly wish Turkey all the best in joining the EU but seriously, delusions about geography aren't helping anyone, least of all Turkey. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

See Template:Europe topic. Yes it has Cyprus in it. And Hexagon1, next time you go on mass revert of my edits I will consider it a vandalism.--Avala (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See Template:Asia topic. Yes it has Cyprus in it. And the Europe template actually explicitly states that Cyprus lies entirely within Asia. So unless you want Cyprus to be under both continents, what is your point? Also I think that Hexagon1 was right to revert you, there is no consensus for your version. sephia karta  |  di mi  12:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And yes all the articles regarding Cyprus are in Europe topic not Asia topic. Why? Well you've got it all in the footnote. How can you not understand that Cyprus has an EU regulated passport design and that as such it can not be Asian?--Avala (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because when Cyprus became a member of the EU, it did not suddenly change continent. Continents are not political concepts, they are geographical and cultural concepts. Geographically, Cyprus is entirely Asian. Culturally, it is a border case, and for this reason it is also included in the Europe template.
 * The only rational alternative to the current set up that would allow what you want is to do away with the classification into continents but instead to group together countries between which people can freely travel, like Schengen, but Cyprus isn't a member of that I believe. sephia karta |  di mi  13:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hear hear, I concur completely (though I have my doubts about the stability and neutrality of any travel-area scheme, which is why I have placed my support behind the UN geoscheme in the first place). Eloquently summed up! +Hexagon1 (t) 03:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK here is a test for the truthfulness of your following of the UN geoscheme. If you continue to put Abkhazia in the UN geoschemed template than I will consider you being dishonest and applying UN geoscheme on Cyprus only while completely ignoring the UN system when it comes to entities that are absolutely not recognised by the organisation.--Avala (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Avala, it is not your role to "test" anyone. We are acting in the best interests of the template. You have just committed two edits to the database which are blatantly counter-productive and a serious violation of WP:POINT (a policy with which you have had problems before). This template exists to facilitate navigation between Passport articles, not to further pathetic nationalist agendas. Abkhazia and S Ossetia are classified as a part of Georgia by the UN, Taiwan/ROC of the PRC, and Kosovo of Serbia, hence it makes perfect sense to place them in their respective continents. I would have no problems with italicising them, if you wish, but your last two edits were in violation of policy, against the best interests of the article, ridiculous and frankly embarrassing. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK so you want to maintain UN geoscheme ONLY in case of Cyprus? Laughable. Your agenda is ridiculous and makes Wikipedia look hysterical. You say we need to stick to the UN but then you endorse Abkhazia, Ossetia, Kosovo, Palestine which have got nothing to do with the UN. Passport design has got nothing to do with geography and any attempt to list the Cypriot passport as Asian is original research because it goes against verifiable content of the European passport.--Avala (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nowhere does it say in that article that Cyprus lies in the continent Europe. Nowhere does this template deny that Cyprus is a member of the European Union. Please answer the following questions: given a country, how do you suppose to decide where to put it on this template? How will you decide where to put Papua New Guinean passport? You are accusing Hexagon1 of not consistently applying the UN geoscheme, even though it clearly puts Abkhazia where the geoscheme puts it, but what is your consistent method to determine where to put a country? sephia karta  |  di mi  21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought I'd wait for Avala's response before responding myself, but seeing as we haven't heard a peep from her and she has been active since your reply, it becomes painfully obvious that unless we revert her edits (which we haven't done so, for readers in posterity) she doesn't give a toss about the template. If that and her policy violations don't prove she is a nationalistic vandal I don't know what will. I have reverted her edits, and to quote her: "next time you go on mass revert of my edits I will consider it a vandalism". +Hexagon1 (t) 13:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * sephia_karta either you can give us a UN source that mentions >Abkhazia< anywhere on any geoscheme or you can't. It's that simple. Hexagon1, it would be nice if you'd refer to Avala in a right gender and to tone down with other insults like "nationalistic vandal" because what kind of a nationalist am I supposed to be in your fantasy views? EU nationalist?.--Avala (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sephia Karta, would you be up for taking this to the Admin noticeboard? This is ridiculous. Avala has not listened to or addressed a single point since this discussion began, instead edit warring (the moment we left her version alone in order to discuss properly she stopped responding all together). This user is as bad-faith as they come (just look through the threats made here and in the template's edit summaries) and without admin intervention this is going to turn into a perpetual edit war. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What is your age? Six? When I tell you that I am not female and you continue to refer to me as "her" I am not sure what it is but looks like some kind of kindergarten poking. You also claim how I only edit war without making comments here while there is plenty of my edits on this page, one just above your comment here so you could only try fooling a blind person with that. I don't see the point in that either "Avala stopped responding here" while my post is right above that only makes you look kind of silly. Anyway it's you that haven't addressed a SINGLE issue. You can't explain how can a passport with a common EUROPEAN design be ASIAN and you can't find ONE source to confirm that the UN lists Abkhazia as an Asian country in any of it's documents.--Avala (talk) 11:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise for the gender-confusion, Avala keeps sounding like a feminine form to my Slavic ears, but believe me - I'd never use gender stereotyping to attack. As for your point: yes, that is your opinion, to which you are entitled. You have not even looked at the arguments we have had to offer. I do not know what you are attempting to achieve by replying if you are unwilling to compromise, or (as it seems) even refuse to read our replies. Either way, my message was addressed to Sephia Karta. I don't trust my judgement here given how annoying and obnoxious you are acting so I will defer the decision on how to continue our debate (more like a monologue in your case) to a move level-headed user. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is quite hysterical that you accuse me of not reading your replies when you are the one completely ignoring what I write. But I do read them and all I see are insults. You can call me annoying all you want but you can't explain why is your revert button stuck so that you returned my edits which give consistency to the footnotes regarding Abkhazia, Kosovo and Taiwan. You suggest that we write how Kosovo is recognised by 54 states, how Abkhazia is internationally recognised as part of Georgia, how Taiwan is not recognised by the UN which is all different. I tried to make it uniform and say how many recognitions they have but no, you just came in and reverted my edits without any explanation. Now did you revert them because I am "annoying and obnoxious" or you actually have a real reason to screw up the uniformity of the template?--Avala (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyprus has more in relation to Europe, in terms of economical, political, social, and historical bonds, than it does to Asia. Plus it has a standardize passport like the other EU nations. El Greco(talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all

I would like to try and make a few clarifications. It would appear that the Island was formed by the squeezing of the east end of the European plate between the Asian and african plates. The Kyrenia mountain range is on a fault line, an extension of the Anatolian fault, north of which is the superduction zone of the the Asian continental plate, meaning the Asian plate is rising and to the south of the island the subduction zone of the African plate, meaning the African plate is descending underneath Cyprus, and to the South of the range the European continental plate. The African continental plate starts to the south of the island, about 30 miles offshore in the Cyprus trench, the northern edge of which has the Eratosthenes tablemount. It is known that Cyprus has turned approximately 90% anti-clockwise since the African continent started to push it northwards. Geologically the facts seem to be that Cyprus is European, though arguably the North part of the Kyrenia mountains could be considered part of the Asian continent subduction zone, this is still not Asian continent proper and if considered so most of it, over 85% of the island is on the European plate. It is not difficult to assess. The island is on the European plate, it is part of European Economic Union (although the Turkish occupation does not allow full membership of the island) and so it is definitely not Asian. There is also the problem that geology is divided over the classification of Asian and European, and it is still unclear as to whether there is simply one continent, Eurasia. India is not part of the Asian continent as many believe, but is on it's own plate having smashed into Asian plate forming the Himalayas. Anyway, I will let you all consider this information and go off and research it yourselves. I am not saying this to sway opinion one way or the other, simply stating these facts as they are, facts. (see "Encyclopedia of European and Asian Regional Geology" by Eldridge M. Moores, Rhodes Whitmore Fairbridge pp160-170) and (cyprus geological unit) --Chaosdruid (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this scientific explanation. I think that this settles it, Cyprus is not only politically in Europe, not only that it shares the standard design of the passport with other EU members but it also almost entirely lays in the continent of Europe.--Avala (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this settle anything? If this isn't WP:OR I'll eat my hat. Plus, it does not follow the current Wikipedia line we have followed in several other articles (here and here and here, all of which firmly place all of Cyprus in Asia). If the editor above wishes to change the Wiki-wide consensus on Cyprus he is more than welcome to do so at Talk:Cyprus. I hope you realise Avala, that if you move Cyprus to Europe you are leaving the back-door completely open to nationalistic editors coming in and moving whatever nations they wish citing the Cyprus precedent. Deferring nation-placement to the UN washes our hands of any perceived bias and is logical for crying out loud. Your EU-passport argument is illogical simply because EU != Europe. French Guianians have the same EU passport as Cypriots, but would you place French Guiana in Europe if the question so arose? I doubt it. Not to mention Russians, who don't have EU passports. Does that mean we remove them from Europe? This makes no sense. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, you agree with my comments, it is in Europe and it is in Asia - the two templates you give list them as both in Europe and in Asia, so why discount the European aspect ?? The map on the link you gave does not show plate boundaries, unlike the references I gave earlier.
 * Seconly, OR is definately not when someone repeats what is stated by two reliable sources, and let us not forget that this is a chat page, and not the article.
 * Russia is not in Europe, only parts of it are. I think this is getting a little off track.
 * As for attacking me, I repeat again "It is definitely not Asian" and is part of both.
 * I would suggest that as the Passports are European and as the article is about Passports, how can you say it is an Asian passport when The Republic of Cyprus Passport is clearly a European passport as a member of the EU??
 * I for one do not like this whole argument. The country is part of Europe in both the other templates you have used as your own example and this should be reflected in the passport templates as such. Passports are NOT geographical, they are a political entity and as such you cannot sway the whole of the Cypriot population, the EU NATO and the whole world.
 * I iterate again, please put Cyprus into the European section as it should be.--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (I most certainly do not agree with your comments, I am boggled at what would give you that impression. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Passports are issued by countries and countries are certainly subject to geographical classification. The EU is not identical to Europe. I can only repeat what I wrote higher up: if you don't like using geographical definitions of continents, then what is your proposed alternative, that can be applied for the whole world? sephia karta  |  di mi  00:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "The EU is not identical to Europe" ? Obviously not as Switzerland and some others are not members. However I do not think that African nations would ever be considered for membership ?
 * Yes, passports are issued by countries, I think we all know that. Countries are geographical ? - no. Countries are political. If you were right, then all of the island I live on would be the same country and it is clearly not. Africa would be one big nation and it is not, and Turkey would be split into two different countries which it is not. Your statement is a little strange and I do not think you understand what the term "country" is. Australia falls under your definition as it is both a country and a continent.
 * I do not propose anything apart from that it is correct to use Europe as the passport for Cyprus as it is issued as a European passport. Once again - I ask you to look at my previous references and this one Cyprus part of European continent
 * It is strange that some people here are ignoring the facts - Cyprus is a European and an Asian country, Turkey is half European, Geologically Cyprus is both Asian and European, as is Turkey - why are you still debating this ??
 * Put Cyprus into the European section to match the Template:Countries_of_Asia and the Template:Countries_of_Europe or else you need to go and argue with them that they have got it wrong.
 * "and for this reason it is also included in the Europe template" I think you said, and so as this is passports (which are a cultural and political idea) and it is a European one, then it definitely must be included in the European section (as well as the asian).
 * Last point, if you look at a geological map, you will see that the Western half of Istanbul is on the European continent, and the Eastern half is on the Asian continent, and so Turkey should be listed in both. And I will definitely be taking this further. Cyprus is not "2 Entirely in West Asia but having socio-political connections with Europe." That is an innacurate statement and as such will be questioned by myself.
 * --Chaosdruid (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Three things: firstly, you clearly misunderstood me when I said that countries are subject to geographical classification. All I mean is that it makes sense to say this country is in this continent, or in that. I never said that countries and continents are the same, which you are suggesting, and which is an absurd notion.
 * Secondly: we both agree that Turkey is geographically mostly Asian, yet it is a candidate member of the EU. You're right that Marocco probably won't be invited to join the EU, but the point I'm making is that even if it were, that wouldn't make it European geographically. Thus we can't use EU membership to prove geographics.
 * Thirdly: you and Avala want different things, I didn't know that. Avala was arguing for moving Cyprus to the European section, while you are saying it should be under both sections. I agree with you that Cyprus is culturally also European, and yes, we could say that we use this as a criterium, and place Cyprus under both Europe and Asia. However, then we have to be consistent. We then also have to place Turkey and the Caucasian states under both headings. I say that really this is too much clutter for this template. So if we want to do this, we have to split this template into five, one for each continent. sephia karta  |  di mi  14:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not misunderstand you, perhaps what you wrote did not convey what you meant to say, "Continents are not political concepts, they are geographical and cultural concepts " this is what I am questioning, a continent is a big lump of rock and is not subject to culture, I suspect that you may not have meant that in the way it was put. Moving on though, Cyprus is definitely on the European continent this is a geological fact and we cannot dispute this. I have already mentioned this on the "template:countries of ..." pages as the original discussion was voted on and they did not have all the facts before them when they decided to discount Cyprus as being in Europe, however if we were to count the square km of European and Asian it would probably be more European, from the Kyrenia mountains to the north coast is around 7km at its widest point (Asian plate) and from the mountains to the south coast being around 45km average (European plate). I do not think that matters though, it is only important that the land is in both continents. I am not using EU membership, I am using geology. I do not think that it is necessary to split up the template in that way. There are only a few countries that exist on two continents, Turkey and Cyprus being the ones discussed here. As for your third point, I agree completely when you say I am suggesting it be listed under both sections, as the Countries of Europe and Countries of Asia templates use a footnote, then it would not be difficult to do this here also. They use "1 Has part of its territory outside...(the area)" for each entry and I cannot see why this cannot be used here which would not need a splitting of the template. I cannot agree with your other points as I have stated already (Cyprus is on European plate etc) Please remember I am NPoV here, I am only interested in correct facts and getting Wikipedia to remain an accurate encyclopedia. Thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are no Asia and Europe plates, if we consider plate techtonics we shouldnt refer India as Asian :P. Check this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khutuck (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cyprus is most definitely NOT on the European continent, at least that is what we as an encyclopaedia consistently claim here and elsewhere. Your arguments are WP:OR and irrelevant (I'm sorry, but it is true). I repeat, if you wish to change the current Wikipedia line on the exact location of Cyprus you are welcome to do so at Talk:Cyprus. I also reiterate what I stated earlier, that the EU is not equal to Europe, and while Cyprus is in the EU it is not in Europe. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all if you have no arguments then admit you are wrong instead of resorting to personal insults. It's much easier for everyone and better for the encyclopedia. Your claims are OR because Chaosdruid posted SOURCES for what he wrote while I don't see a SINGLE link next to your pompous statement "Cyprus is most definitely NOT on the European continent" so if anything on this page can be called irrelevant than such comments are. You could claim anything, Cyprus is in Australia, why not if you are not going to source your claims anything goes. And EU is not equal to Europe but it is part of Europe. And passports are not geographical but political terms so for that matter the fact that Cyprus is a mostly European island is not too important. If French Guiana had a passport that said French Guiana - EU, yes it would have been a European passport, but there is no such thing yet as all of the current EU passports are passports of also geographically European countries.--Avala (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to tell us what makes a country "in Europe" please ?
 * I must not have understood what defines a country being in Europe so please tell us what you think - we know that being part of the EU does not make a country in Europe so you MUST tell us what does...
 * Do not accuse me of OR again. I simply relayed the information from those three sources. This is a discussion, do not try and turn it into anything else.
 * --Chaosdruid (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To Khutuck - no one is saying that India is part of Asia, I was pointing out that it is not part of Asia so thanks for agreeing with me. Secondly, I apologise as I was referring to continental tectonics rather than tectonic plates - the Euroasian plate is in fact one whole, as I stated earlier but omitted to explain that the continents were different. Would you agree with "A tectonic plate can be made of one or many continents which when they move as a whole unit,or block, gives rise to the definition tectonic plate"
 * The source you're asking for is the same that we talk about all the time: the UN . There is no such thing as seperate European and Asian continental plates, so I don't understand what you mean. (Borders_of_the_continents). sephia karta |  di mi  23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've talked to people like this before. It doesn't matter what you tell them about sourcing, policy, NPOV, etc. They'll just come back with the same utterly irrelevant WP:OR pseudo-scientific spiel (which I for one, make a point of not reading) interspersed with bizarre accusations of personal insults (the definition of this phrase universally seems to elude them). Avala, Chaosdruid, listen to me, for crying out loud: we either use the UN geoscheme here, or we don't. If you don't wish to use the UN geoscheme, fine, you have to make a case against it (and propose a good replacement that would cover the whole world). If you think the UN has gotten world geography wrong and that you are a better authority on this than a panel of the world's foremost geographers you are welcome to make your case at the relevant articles and talks. I repeat, since this seems to be a sticking point: "at the relevant articles and talks". Not at a random navigation template. The only reason I could possibly come up with for why you refuse to take this debate elsewhere is that you know you will fail elsewhere and are trying to undermine the consensus on this issue. Now, I'm going back to bed. I've got a cold, am pumped cloud-high on medication and I still have to come here shuddering what new preposterous thing you've come up in my absence. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And here we go again with the UN. UN doesn't know anything about the Abkhaz passport, yet we have it among all the other passports just like it was one of them with no difference. So your adherence to the UN geoscheme is selective, we use it for Cyprus but when it comes to Abkhazia we turn a blind eye. Well I am sorry but this is not how things work or to cite you "we either use the UN geoscheme here, or we don't". And like I said before, Chaosdruid gave us a thorough scientific analysis that proves that Cyprus is even geographically part of Europe but the main idea of this template is a political thing called passport. And the Cypriot passport is a European passport.--Avala (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have not gotten a more perfect example of the type of person I just described had I paid someone to fake it. Just like I said, Avala completely ignores that every single one of their points has been addressed previously. I quote myself from 20/02: "Abkhazia and S Ossetia are classified as a part of Georgia by the UN, Taiwan/ROC of the PRC, and Kosovo of Serbia, hence it makes perfect sense to place them in their respective continents.". I quote sephia karta from the same day: "You are accusing Hexagon1 of not consistently applying the UN geoscheme, even though it clearly puts Abkhazia where the geoscheme puts it". The rest of your post is pretty succinctly rebutted in my reply just above, so... ditto. I suggest you reread it. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Avala, I provided that source in response to your claim I don't see a SINGLE link next to your pompous statement "Cyprus is most definitely NOT on the European continent". We were talking about Cyprus, Abkhazia and Kosovo are another matter. It is simply not true that we are turning a blind eye to the UN source, because this sounds as though the source says one thing about the continent these place belong to and we another. You are right that we need to establish where the UN geoscheme puts these places (Abkhazia may lie entirely in Europe if you look at Borders_of_the_continents), but that has nothing to do with the Cyprus issue. sephia karta  |  di mi  16:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hexagon1, nope that's called original research. We can't assume where would the UN put Abkhazia if they were a member state. If the Western Marmara of Turkey became independent it would be listed in Europe but according to your logic it would be placed in Asia. Georgia is sometimes listed as European exactly because of the northern parts of the country which includes Abkhazia so it's actually more possible that if it became a member it would be listed as European. But this is not about whether Abkhazia should be listed in Asia or Europe as your answer implies. This is about listing a separatist region with passports that are not recognised by the majority of the UN member states among all the other passport without a slightest hint that they don't belong there. Explaining their political status in a footnote is not good enough because such passports do not have a place in a UN geoscheme. There is no sources that say that the UN geoscheme would put Abkhazia anywhere so any such statements are original to this talk page. Sephia karta, the issue of Cyprus is tied to those because Hexagon1 says we must use the UN geoscheme to place Cyprus but when it comes to Abkhazia and similar, he says we should resort to OR and make assumptions of where would the UN put Abkhazia. So this template is not consistent, we either use the UN geoscheme at all times and put Cyprus in Asia and Abkhazia in a separate group of disputed countries or we don't use the UN geoscheme and put Cyprus in Europe and Abkhazia among all the other normal passports.--Avala (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you actually read WP:OR, since you (honestly) appear to have no idea what the policy is actually about. If there is anyone here resorting to WP:OR assumptions and statements it is Chaos and you, which should be patently obvious to any rational observer. Whereas I suggest a way to better apply a well-used geographical scheme, you and him have gone on a number of tangents elaborating strange WP:OR pseudo-science which is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand. But fine, I digress. If you are so unhappy with the UN geoscheme, please, I again ask you what neutral authoritative scheme covering the entire world (including all micro- and unrecognised nations, since you appear to find my solution so problematic) you would prefer and why. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure here I am reading the OR policy for the first time in my life. And here is what I found : Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. - where is your reference for Abkhazia being an Asian country according to the UN? And by that I don't mean your assumption that because they list Georgia as Asian the same thing would apply to Abkhazia as it is just your unverifiable speculation. I can't put it any simpler. I've been asking this for some time but you are dodging the answer because you don't have one.--Avala (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued
This is getting increasingly preposterous. You seize upon an insignificant and minor detail in an effort to undermine a stable consensus. When a solution has been offered to your problem, you simply move to a new insignificant detail and carry on a lengthy monologue complaining of the problems your new pet project presents. I, along with other users, have presented a number of proposed solutions that should satisfy the most hard-headed individual, yet you persist in repeatedly utterly ignoring our arguments in favour of vomiting out what you see as your freshly thought-of coup de grâce, which in fact is usually completely idiotic, puerile and hopelessly irrelevant. While I won't comment on your shocking ignorance of (and at times arrogance towards) Wikipedia policy (which makes me shudder for the Serbian Wikipedia, if indeed you are an admin there), I am left to ponder why you stubbornly refuse to take this discussion to a more appropriate location. Talk:United Nations geoscheme. Talk:Cyprus. Talk:Abkhazia. Talk:South Ossetia. Talk:Republic of China. Centralised discussion. I have time and time again told you that this is not the appropriate place to ramble about what you perceive as faults in the world's foremost geographic scheme. There is only one reason I can think of why you wish to continue the discussion here, an analysis I have already stated before: you do not feel confident enough to challenge the UN geoscheme on Talks where it could make a difference, so you decided to soften up opposition by perverting our use of it on low-traffic articles and templates. Then you can show up at Talk:United Nations geoscheme and say: "hey, we've already decided against using it fully in all these places, why should we use fully anywhere" and thus get whatever nation you wish moved anywhere else. If this is not why you are 'debating' (I use the term loosely) at this template rather then at the aforementioned infinitely more appropriate talks, please, feel free to explain yourself. And if you keep stubbornly refusing to even do so much as acknowledge our arguments, or keep day-dreaming about geography, this discussion will end right here. Consensus need not be unanimous.

You will also note I did not answer your question. That is because I know you will simply jump on that part of my reply, no matter how small and insignificant and conveniently ignore the rest. Rest assured I have a reply for you, which I will gladly break out in a more appropriate location, but not here. I do not know how to emphasise this more than I already have. If you wish to continue your discussion on the faults, merits and Wikipedia-applicability of the UN geoscheme, you are more than welcome to, at the relevant pages. +Hexagon1 (t) 05:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that a heap of insults equals to the heaps of arguments then I don't what to tell you but I do want you to stop telling me how I am ignoring your proposals because if you think that the problem solving lies in using words like ignorance, idiotic, irrelevant, vomiting, arrogance - it does not. You need to give a specific proposal not a pile of insults and directing me to a different talk page to discuss your assumption that Abkhazia would be listed this and that in the UN geoscheme is just silly. You are the one who has a problem with the UN geoscheme so you are the one who should go there and explan in the UN geoscheme talk page that we should ignore it and that Wikipedia should consider Abkhazia, Kosovo, Taiwan, Palestine just as any other country and that they should be listed per what we assume they should be (no sources by all means, just what one user feels like is right etc.). And if there is anyone who is ignoring the Wiki policy than it must be you. You couldn't reply to my last comment so you opened a new section however I am still waiting; The WP:OR says that the Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. - where is your reference for Abkhazia being an Asian country according to the UN? And by that I don't mean your assumption that because they list Georgia as Asian the same thing would apply to Abkhazia (see my example with Turkey and Western Marmara) as it is just your unverifiable speculation. I can't put it any simpler. I've been asking this for some time but you are dodging the answer because you don't have one. If you do have one please answer because this is the place for you to reply not a different talk page because this is the template where you are not allowing for Abkhazia and such to be listed in a separate group for disputed territories. I don't see such a problem in other templates. Regarding Cyprus and Georgia, I haven't noticed that the Template:Europe topic is following the UN geoscheme, but let's put that away for a moment and notice how in that same template Abkhazia and Northern Cyprus are not listed among the other real countries. Respecting the UN geoscheme only in the case of Cyprus is inconsistent and it's not enough, you need to respect it in all cases.--Avala (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god, talking to a hippopotamus would be more productive. Please re-read my last post, since you appear to have understood none of it. Oh, and I started a new section because there was too much content for my spell-check to handle in the old one. Don't flatter yourself into thinking that your argument is infallible, because it is so very far from it. If you think I am the one with the problem with the UN geoscheme you must not be reading the same discussion I am. I have an argument against your nonsense (it's hard not to), so if you wish to hear it, I repeat: take this somewhere more appropriate, somewhere where it won't just be a few editors arguing and making no headway because one of them refuses to listen all together. If you don't, then that's just definitive proof you're not after a sustained healthy discussion. Oh, and PS: Personal insults are against the person, not against the argument. I'd think that was rather obvious, yet, here we are. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's now discuss this in simple short form because obviously you don't want to read the whole thing. So, I am not looking to change the UN geoscheme therefore I have nothing to discuss elsewhere. I am discussing it here because it is unclear whether this template is using that scheme or not. I want two things - one is to determine if we are using the UN geoscheme or not. If we are then I want it to be used consistently and without any violation of the UN geoscheme (ie. to exclude everything that is not in line with the UN geoscheme). OK? P.S. Yes, are you attacking an argument by mentioning that large animal? --Avala (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep circumlocuting your way around the issues, so congratulations on finally stating what your concern is, finally this may hopefully move along somewhat (assuming you read and reply to other people, of course). We are using the UN geoscheme fully. Every nation is placed where the UN places it, and every unrecognised nation is placed under the nation that the UN recognises it to be a part of. I think this is abundantly clear, yet if you wish to make it clearer we could perhaps change the form to something like "Cyprus · Georgia ( Abkhazia · South Ossetia ) · Hong Kong". Would you find this clearer? You should note that this is, what, the second or third solution I've presented here to your problems, no matter how illogical or incomprehensible I found them, so I'd appreciate you stop accusing me of not hearing your out. I am very glad we are making headway. +Hexagon1 (t) 23:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a week and just got back - I have read some of the comments but will deal with them later today - Hexagon has lost it I think (pseudo scientific spiel etc - which was written by scientists who I assume are qualified to write scientific articles without some non scientist telling them they are wirting nonsense ?) and needs a big hug so he can calm down and get things back in perspective.--Chaosdruid (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh? I'd assume you would just read me my tarot cards for the next lunar cycle. Perhaps you should read WP:OR too to understand why your rant is inadmissible, and (far more importantly) my posts above to see why it is utterly irrelevant at this particular talk page, even if it weren't inadmissible. I am glad Avala and I now agree on these points (at least in principle) and are now finally making progress. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK I waited a few days to hear more inputs but it seems that no one posted. I'd be glad to read more views so we can reach the actual consensus not some kind of truce consensus that will not last for more than a few days until a third users comes in disagreement.--Avala (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear no one else seems to have a problem with it. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted you because you broke the coding, I don't know why. A similar thing happened when I tried to post the example text in my post above, it stretched the article strangely. I don't have time to look at that right now (I'm editing from my iPod touch), so if someone fixed the coding I'd be grateful. +Hexagon1 (t) 02:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with it. Wikipedia is not a UN agency and does not need to act in accordance with UN policies, such as they are. Please don't lump Kosovo under Serbia as that's a huge POV, something which we try to avoid here. --alchaemia (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We have chosen to follow the UN geoscheme after much discussion in an attempt to eliminate WP:OR and WP:NPOV. For nations that fall outside the UN geoscheme, we group them under the nation the UN does. You'd know this if you had read the entire debate. If you have a better geoscheme, one which is neutral, objective and covers the entire planet, feel free to suggest it. Moving Kosovo to its own place is in contravention of the agreed-upon UN geoscheme, and being entirely arbitrary it opens us to accusations of WP:OR, which in turn lead to violations of WP:NPOV. Nothing sets Kosovo apart from Abkhazia and S. Ossetia, or Somaliland for that matter. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On a brief glance I count at least nine editors who had contributed to the discussion, all of us with wildly differing opinions. We were able to finally agree, without edit warring. All nine of us were free to propose new suggestions or challenge the consensus which had been finally agreed upon. A consensus doesn't have anything to do with the number of editors it involves nor does it have to be unanimous, it relates to article (or template) stability. This article has been stable until you have decided to challenge the consensus. To do so you must explain what your problem with our agreed scheme is, and what you suggest to replace it, and do so here, not using edit summaries while you edit war. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the UN geoscheme is relevant at all. The UN is merely one organization, and it does not decide who's sovereign and who isn't. I do have a better idea: leave it the way it was. with notes explaining that some of the states are disputed. Which is what we had prior to you and Avala establishing "consensus" here among yourselves. Also, what sets Kosovo apart from Abkhazia or South Osettia is: membership in at least two UN specialized agencies (IMF, World Bank), membership in several international sports organizations, much larger international recognition and thus much larger international recognition of its passports (both official, and de facto). If you don't see the difference between Kosovo and S. Osettia or Abkhazia, then you have a POV to push here. Also, I don't see the Republic of China under PRC, or is that part of your "consensus" too? Revert. --alchaemia (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You mention only me and Hexagon1 while he clearly told you that there were at least ten other users involved in this exact discussion. Weighing who has higher quality recognition is pure and simple original research and is forbidden. In the end it doesn't matter because when it comes to the UN, a state is either a member or not - there are only two cases of in-between and those are Vatican and Palestine, the first one having an official status of an observer and the second one on the way to get that status. Leaving it "the way it was" is quite unclear and fluid because which version are you referring to? We could say that it was this and that and third way so there is no single previous edit to point at. There is no reason to write consensus as "consensus" as it quite clearly is the consensus when there are ten users on one side (and all that after a huge discussion) and one newbie user that is trying to push his political agenda into encyclopedia which is not the way things should go. Taiwan was obviously a mistake, thanks for pointing out.--Avala (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I only see your and Hexagon's name here. Don't see "10 different users" here. Also, what is the reason for changing the previously very functional and very clear template? Also, as has been said before, just because a state is a non-UN member does not mean that that state is not sovereign. I defer you to the case of Switzerland. And another thing: you may think that using the UN geoscheme is fine and dandy but I disagree. You can use it for member countries, but lumping Kosovo with Serbia is a clear POV, and even the UN says that they're neutral (i.e. not supporting either side) on Kosovo's status. I also call on you to watch your language as no-one's a "newbie" here. You may have been editing and pushing your pro-Serb POV here longer than I've been a member, but that does not make your edits any more neutral than mine. There is simply no parallel between S. Osettia and Kosovo and that's the way things are. --alchaemia (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "The way things are". Again, your oratorical skills astound me. Well, I'm convinced, how about you Avala? While the UN are neutral on who owns Kosovo, they are not neutral on where they place it within their geoscheme. Oh, and PS: ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, Turkish Flame, sephia karta, me, Avala, Khutuck, Michalpe and Chaosdruid are the editors I can see just on a brief skim of the paragraphs above. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, brilliant argument. "Agree with me or you're biased." Before me and Avala came? Leave it on what you like, yes, neutral and very stable. You have had much experience dealing with this type of contested template. I bow before you. Kosovo is a partially recognised UN non-member. South Ossetia and Abkazia are the same. Merely because you feel otherwise is most definitely insufficient for this debate, and the criteria you have presented are completely WP:OR. Unlike the three, the ROC I would argue is a special case, but I defer the placement to the UN in the interest of template stability, and I would be fine with moving it under the PRC. You have not only not presented any argument as of yet, merely calling all and sundry bias, but you have also presented no alternative. If you wish to be taken seriously, you must do so. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Drop the cheap sarcasm and refer to my answer above. A country a member of UN agencies, with strong international recognition is not the same as a village of 70,000 people recognized by Russia and Nicaragua alone, with no membership whatsoever, and whose passports are not accepted anywhere except Russia (as opposed to Kosovo, whose passports are widely accepted). --alchaemia (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll stick with the sarcasm thanks, I've grown quite fond of it. Just because you associate weight to the importance of international NGO membership, doesn't mean that anyone else does, it is a WP:OR argument. What makes the World Bank any more authoritative than say, the Russian-South Ossetian FTA? You appear to have simply decided where Kosovo goes without regard for argument or reason, not very WP:NPOV of you. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we shouldn't use the UN geoscheme here. -- Turkish Flame   ☎  12:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to argue your point with us above. Since you aren't edit warring you already sound more reasonable than Alchaemia, I look forward to your contribution. +Hexagon1 (t) 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agre with Alchaemia that things should be left as they are. There is nothing wrong with the present scheme of listing with explanatory notes. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself, if you agree with alchaemia then you agree to break the consensus and change the article to something different. If you think "that things should be left as they are" then we should continue to respect the UN geoscheme per consensus which obviously has some drawbacks and means compromises (like listing the EU passport of Cyprus in Asia) but it saves the template from edit wars.--Avala (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I can see that I was unclear. That's my fault.  I do not think the UN geoscheme is ideal, since it leads to the creation of false impressions.  I have no objection at all to listing Abkhazia or South Ossetia separately from Georgia, since they are passport issuing entities.  Same with Kosovo and Transnistria.  Since the template is passports, you can list them separately from the disputing states and include a note.  I do not think we should be in the business of judging the "worth" of passports, as it were.  If they issue one, they can be listed independently and that in no way compromises us. - Canadian Bobby (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The primary purpose of a passport is to facilitate international travel for citizens of a particular state in other states. Transnistria is not recognised by any sovereign state, yet it issues a passport: should it be listed, and should it be equitably listed/placed with states? Arguably not. A neutral point of view does not mean that these items are placed on equal footing as such, but they must be equitably dealt with and given due weight. This becomes a slippery slope for entities that have only slightly more international recognition (e.g., Abkhazia) and somewhat moreso than that (e.g., Taiwan, Kosovo). Wikipedia needn't cater to whatever nationalist or separatist regimes -- or even editors -- there may be, a by-product of which seems to be the spillover of neutrality/content disputes in related articles, and emergent issues elsewhere (e.g., Gallery of passports.) Anyhow, international recognition is an important facet of statehood, as our article/list of states points out: even that article rightfully qualifies these entities in a separate section. So, IMO, if these entities are listed (and my preference would be to list them in parentheticals after their 'parent' entities) or to list them after UN members, they must be qualified somehow. (And, please note that I recently added the first entry to the template out of amity.) As well, there is nothing wrong at all with listing entities per the UN geoscheme, particularly in absence of another authoritative scheme; attempts to discredit it ring rather hollow. As such, there is no reason to change the template's current organisation on this point. We needn't pander to editors who choose this over that because they simply don't like it. Bosonic dressing (talk) As well, the UN Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I moved Kosovo, Taiwan etc. to disputed group you said how it's not important because we group per continents and disputed status is explained in notes. Then when I added Abkhazia and Transnistria it suddenly became important and you said how we can add only sovereign state passports. Are Taiwan, Kosovo, Palestine etc. sovereign? I don't think so. Can they be used for travel? Yes they can but the Abkhazian passport can be used for travel as well so I don't see what is your point unless you would reformulate it to "I want to push for Kosovo agenda but I hate Abkhazia" which isn't an encyclopedic argument but would be at least honest and would save me from the spin in your contradictory ride.--Avala (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, this is a sort of non sequitur. In the gallery, given the arrangement by continent, your moving of all the contentious entries to a single disputed section at the end of the article -- without edit comment at first and in apprent furtherance of your agenda -- didn't make sense; doing so for each continent just might.  As well, none of these contentious territories are sovereign states (in amendment of my prior edit comment), though they may be states or even countries in some measure.  The point is that these entries should be rightfully qualified: Abkhazia and Transnistria were included in the gallery, i.e., they were listed under their parent states given their limited (or no) recognition (and perhaps even this is too much, given that they are not readily found on a host of national lists in other compendiums), while Kosovo and Taiwan were exhibited, first entitled by their parent states and then changed later based on their broader recognition.  All things are not equal, so don't make them out to be.
 * You also failed to really address anything above, which is unsurprising and has already been pointed out by others. It's also curious that the 'ride' you speak of is rather through your own bluster, disruption, and actions to date, if your attitude above and (e.g.) when devising an equitable map at Serbia/Kosovo is any indication -- so, to extend the metaphor, put on your seatbelt, or leave. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a discussion related to a different page, would it be possible to keep it there? This page is rather confusing enough given the length and complexity of our discussions as is. From your initial post I gather you are in favour of keeping the UN geoscheme, Bosonic dressing. We could continue from there. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes (if it is worthy of continuing, which is doubtful), and yes with improvisation (the UN geoscheme may place UN members etc. in one or more continent/region, but it does not explicitly do so for breakaway regions; however, inferences made thus far are reasonable). Bosonic dressing (talk) 04:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to list all the disputed passports in a separate section. This would be in line with consensus just as well because the UN geoscheme doesn't mention these entities just their parent countries. So it's either in the brackets as it is now which is listing them per parent country or listing them separately per their disputed status ie. the lack of recognition from the UN.--Avala (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am fine with either one but I am partial to listing them in brackets for the sake of usability. If an editor comes looking for a hypothetical article on the Somaliland passport, it is rather clear where it would fall in the template under the brackets system. Much easier to find then were it buried in an unrecognised section, which could conceivably expand to unwieldy length. +Hexagon1 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

invitations
Just to point out that alchaemia is spreading invitations around to his friends, users of Wikipedia, to come here and post their one sentence vote to support him. I am sorry but this, apart from being against WP rules and being lame, is also not going to change the consensus as you need arguments not votes for that. Several pages of discussion cannot be exchanged for a few sentences. And as written in discussion after achieving consensus there was a plenty of time, a few months, given to everyone to come up with a new proposal if they can and nobody did so it cemented the consensus even further.--Avala (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

As you can see in Consensus:

Editors can easily create the appearance of a changing consensus by "forum shopping": asking again and hoping that a different and more sympathetic group of people discusses the issue. This is a poor example of changing consensus, and is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia works. Wikipedia does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

At the same time it is normal to invite more people into the discussion, in order to obtain new insights and arguments. However the invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects.

It is also similar to Forum shopping and vote stacking

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly frowned-upon by many editors to send mass talk messages to those who expressed only a particular viewpoint on the previous debate, such as only "Keep" voters or only "Delete" voters.

Posting a friendly notice on users' talk pages, to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances, case-by-case.

As you can see it is not welcome and please stop from further canvassing actions. If not, admins will take the right given in Responding to disruptive canvassing and will block such users "to prevent them from posting further notices" --Avala (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BN(O)
If the IP would like to explain why the BN(O) passport ought not to be included in the template this is the appropriate venue. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Combining footnotes
Would anyone be opposed to agglomerating all the "X declared independence from Y on dd/mm/yyyy and is recognised by Z UN members" into a simpler "This state is partially unrecognised and has not been classified by the United Nations geoscheme. It has been listed next to the member state the UN categorises it under." or something along those lines? As far as I can see it would affect 5, 6, 9 and 10. Could save a lot of space. +Hexagon1 12:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support--Avala (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made the edit, hope I haven't screwed anything up too badly. If there is anyone unhappy with the footnote change feel free to raise it here. +Hexagon1 15:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also removed "Has part of its territory" as the UN geoscheme doesn't go that deep in analysis but lists such countries per where the majority of land mass or the most important part like capital city is located.--Avala (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)