Template talk:Asia topic/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Start: Moved from /*Proposal with working code*/

Since Joowwww said "Tibet isn't listed as a disputed region, it's listed as an autonomous area." I'll change "Tibet" to "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet". So do Xinjiang, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Macau, etc (Because of difference on definition). --虞海 (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Revert Xinjiang, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia and Ningxia and 2 SAR because the "difference on definition" occur on Tibet only. --虞海 (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

For this template to function properly it must use the short names of regions. There are some other links also that are ill defined in the no prefix and no suffix state. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I know it must use the short names of region, however, the short Tibet has become a parallel article, and it includes Qinghai. Qinghai is not a Autonomous Area though there's many autonomous prefectures in it. So we need to use "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet" instead "Tibet", or else list Sikkim here. --虞海 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That just like we instead Tuva as Tannu Uriankhai. --虞海 (talk) 07:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That just like we instead China as Greater China, too. (I write this because nobody replies me.) --虞海 (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should add "Greater India" or "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" too? I don't see necessity of adding all those labels.--Pyl (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you get I'm listing con-example? I was saying we shouldn't instead China as Greater China. For the same reason, we shouldn't use "Tibet" instead "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet". Don't make joke, please? --虞海 (talk) 06:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another 2 con-examples: when we should write Americas, because "it must use the short names of regions", you can write America to confuse readers. Or when we should write Republic of China, because "it must use the short names of regions", write China. --虞海 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't making jokes. I was just pointing out with examples why those labels dont mean anything. I don't think I have a position to take at this moment on Tibet. If you wish to pursue that further, please make a separate section, maybe below the following "Taiwan" section.

America is a common name for the country called the 'United States of America' and no one in their right mind will confuse the two, so there is no need to point out. This example can't be applied to China, Taiwan, ROC, PRC. This is a bad example. It is my view that pointing out mistakes that only a very marginal section of the society will make does not add weight to your argument.--Pyl (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop: Moved from /*Proposal with working code*/, start a new talk

To Pyl: Please mention the reason why "This example can't be applied to China". Also, I don't think "no one in their right mind will confuse the two": America is also a common name for Americas, see America_(disambiguation). --虞海 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This format I think is in a poor form. We should contain talks relating to Taiwan inside the original section. I was saying if you want to talk about Tibet (which I dont have anything to say about at the moment), you should make another section.

I think that's just the format you ask for. What do you mean by "relating to Taiwan inside the original section"? --虞海 (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

meaning, don't talk about Taiwan in a section called Tibet.--pyl (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not only is Taiwan related to this topic, but Sikkim is related as well: if they don't change "Tibet" to "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet", they should add Sikkim into the template because that's a signal they agree disputed area should list here. As for Taiwan, it's a properly example. --虞海 (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

America is an ambigious word but normally people can tell what it means by context of the sentence. China, Taiwan, ROC and PRC can't really be clarified that way *neutrally* (that is, without offending people).--Pyl (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The relation between TAR and Greater Tibet is just between [the relation between Americas and USA] & [the relation between China and PRC, ROC, ETC.] --虞海 (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

虞海, what exactly are you proposing? --Joowwww (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I propose to change "Tibet" to "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet". --虞海 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that, although one major issue is that there aren't as many "X in the Tibet Autonomous Area" articles as there are "X in Tibet" articles. --Joowwww (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I know. That's only a technic problem. The best way is when without perfix, use "Tibet Autonomous Area|Tibet", and when with perfix, use "Tibet". But though there isn't that technic, we shouldn't use mere a Tibet to mislead people that "Qinghai, etc" is a part of Tibet. --虞海 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We can add an article Tibet (AR) redirect to Tibet Autonomous Region and then it's shorter. --虞海 (talk) 06:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Could the template's code be replaced with the one found at User:Jhattara/Sandbox. Only changes are additions of 'the' to several entities that use it in their sub page titles. That page can be deleted when the changes have been applied. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 08:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For the "Names of Asia" template found on pages such as Names of China, Names of Japan, etc, the values for North and South Korea should redirect to Names of Korea, currently it is redlinked. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: I have added redirects to the respective "name" pages; however I think the template topic should be "Names of Asia" and not "Name of Asia", which leads to many redlinks and misses many existing articles. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfixable error: The link to Russia must be to Etymology of Rus and derivatives, however Name of Russia is a TV show. The template must be edited in some way. Alternatively, the Name of Russia should be either renamed Name of Russia (TV Project) or turned into a disambiguation page. An edit to the template should also be done on Name of Europe. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the template can be fixed in that way, it only deals with a "Topic of Country" parameter, and exceptions can't really be made. All that can be done is redirects to the correct page. --Joowwww (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Would you please disambiguate the wikilink from Papua to Papua (Indonesian province). Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial. Seconded.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I took a look, but this is a pretty complex template, so it's not as simple as just fixing a redirect. If someone wants to come up with the exact code changes that are needed though, please resubmit the request. --Elonka 21:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(Done) Has been undertaken by a previous editor of template. billinghurst (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there is only one article, Islam in Korea, covering the whole of Korea, the North Korea and South Korea entries needs to be replaced by a single Korea entry. Jagged 85 (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That can't be done as this template just codes the "in Country" section and can't make exceptions for different topics. What can be done is a redirect to the correct article. --Joowwww (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The links to Taiwan, Oceania, and Timor-Leste topics don't work. They point to the articles on the places/countries/regions/whatever you want to call them instead of pointing to the topical article. Unfortately the template is locked and can't be fixed. Why is the article still locked? Readin (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? --Joowwww (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Go to the Art of Thailand page. At the bottom of the page, the navbox appears. If you click on "Jordan", the template directs you to the Art of Jordan page, just as it should. However, if you click on "Oceania", you are taken to the Oceania page rather than the Art of Oceania page.
• For a second example, go to the Religion in Korea page. At the bottom of the page, the navbox appears. If you click on "Bhutan", the template directs you to the Religion in Bhutan page, just as it should. However, if you click on "Taiwan", you are taken to the Taiwan page rather than the Religion in Taiwan page. Readin (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On further research, I'll retract the complaint about Timor-Leste as it is simply another name for "East Timor" and the East Timor links are working properly, and there don't appear to be any separate articles for Timor-Leste. Readin (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The links in the bottom bar are just generic links to the area for disambiguation, they're not meant to link to topics. That's what the main section is for. Religion in the Republic of China redirects to Religion in Taiwan anyway. --Joowwww (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It does clear things up, thank you. However, for cases where the link goes to "Taiwan", the text on the page should say "Taiwan" as well. Of course when combined with the footnote, this would be confusing. Using "Republic of China (Taiwan)" would be clearer in all cases. The way it is currently structured, people looking for something in Taiwan will only know to look for "Republic of China" if they know Taiwan's formal name, which many people do not.

Also, this method only works when there is a redirect from a "Republic of China" page, which there often isn't because no one calls it that. This method places a burden on anyone who creates a Taiwan related page to remember to also create a redirect from a ROC named page, even in cases where it may make no sense because the topic is about something pre-1949 having nothing to do with the ROC.

Another problem is that the Republic of China page may hide the Taiwan page. A perfect example of this is History of Asia page which has no link to History of Taiwan. It also has no link to History of China which it should have because both the PRC and ROC history only cover a fraction of the total China history (just as the ROC page only covers a fraction of Taiwan's history). Readin (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Both China and Taiwan fall under geographical areas, which, as already established, aren't listed on this template. --Joowwww (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt whether there is any such thing as the "Coat of arms of the West Bank" or "Coat of arms of Gaza", which creates problems when this template is used for Template:Coats of arms of Asia. Is there any way to configure things so that these entries could be suppressed in the "Coats of arms of Asia" template? AnonMoos (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Technically it could be done, but excluding all such examples would make the template a bit too bloated. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 10:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

These days, all problems we talked is about the name. (e.g. N&S.Korea,ROC/Taiwan,Tibet/TAR...) I think the best way to solve this problem is build 3 templates: Template:Asia topic, Template:Asian topic and Template:in Asia topic. In Template:Asia topic, use [[Tibet Autonomous Region|Tibet]], [[Republic of China]], [[North Korea]], [[South Korea]], [[Mongolia]]... And in Template:in Asia topic, use [[Tibet]], [[Taiwan]], [[Korea]], [[Mongolia]](Greater Mongolia), etc. And in Template:in Asia topic, those items shouldn't be list as countrys or dependencies, we use the phrase cultural entity. The Template:in Asia topic is used as "... in Asia(Somewhere)", Template: Asia topic is used as "Asia(Somewhere)" and Template: Asian topic is used as "Asian(Somewhere) ..." --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think three templates doing essentially the same thing would be highly redundant. --Joowwww (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. That would only give us an additional problem of determining which articles should use which template. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyway you must agree it can help us avoid many problems, won't you? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It could avoid some problems, but it would also introduce a lot of new problems. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It avoids POV problems and introduces technical problems. However, technical problems are easier to solve. You know it's Wikipedian point to be strictly neutural and, as for the technic, unnecessary to be perfect. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 05:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO it avoids some POV problems but creates a new set of POV problems. Some people might argue that one template should be used in a place where others want to use a template with different contents. There are no actual technical problems associated with creating three templates, except for the increased workload of the editors. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

If Georgia has a footnote that it is "Sometimes included in Europe, depending on the border definitions", these two entities should also have such note.--79.111.81.50 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done Stifle (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

why was this "done" even though no kind of supporting evidence was presented? South Ossetia and Armenia are entirely in SW Asia. Azerbaijan and Georgia are transcontinental. Abkhazia should probably be considered as entirely within Europe. --dab (𒁳) 08:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The template footnotes state that italics are for "unrecognized or partially recognized countries". As the Republic of China is only recognized by a handful of small countries, please italicize the name. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I could agree with that. It's a fact that many countries do not recognize ROC officially. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 11:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of an issue as some countries that recognise the ROC don't recognise the PRC. --Joowwww (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's true though... Maybe keeping the article as it is would be the closest to NPOV. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 12:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reality is that it's a zero-sum game: there aren't any countries which recognize both. The PRC forces countries to choose one or the other. At last count I think there were only about 16 or 17 small countries (counting the Vatican) that recognized the ROC (this number is gradually shrinking). As for NPOV, there's nothing POV about the fact that the ROC is mostly unrecognized. If we're worried about offending people, then we should pick a consistent rule for the whole template.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just leave the template as is. One interpretation of the word "partial" means not full (100%). The PRC, North Korea, South Korea etc don't have 100% of world recognition. Just to clarify, the ROC has formal diplomatic relations with 23 countries. But yes, all of them are relatively small. If we are doing italics, then we should do it to all of the countries with partial recognition (ie not 100%) in order to be neutral.--pyl (talk) 06:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but it deserves beating. This question of partial recognition wouldn't be an issue if we would just make this "navbox" a navigational aid and stop trying to make it a reference on which countries are sovereign and which aren't. Readin (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already been said that you are welcome to make other templates based on geographical areas if you want to. But I don't see how this navbox template doesn't serve its purpose - navigation between the different sovereign states and autonomous areas/dependencies. The question of the ROC's recognition is exactly that - a question. One question doesn't warrant an overhaul of the entire Topic in Country template series. --Joowwww (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If I were to make another template based on ease of navigation (no one said anything about "geographical areas"), what would I name it? Obviously I would name it after a region, like "Asia". "Asia" is not defined as a collection of sovereign states, after all. Why should the "Template:Asian Sovereign State topic" topic have exclusive use of the simple "Asia topic" name? Readin (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying what a particular template should be called. This template is part of a series, and if one was renamed then they would all have to be too. And given that this is the only one where someone's claiming it should be, I doubt the idea of a series-wide move would gain much traction. --Joowwww (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Given Pyl's insightful comment that "partial" means "not 100%", is there any support for just taking the italics out altogether? It seems to be a somewhat arbitrary line we're drawing with it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 14:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If it was discussed with the other Topic in Country templates and agreed to remove it across them all, keeping them consistent, then I would have no problem with it. Although some people probably would - in regards to places like South Ossetia - and I suppose deciding whether or not it is a country would be POV, with I think was the reason for the italics in the first place. --Joowwww (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like something it's not really worth pursuing. :) I'll drop it. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Altai is a disambig page. Which Altai is in question? Bennylin (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

It's Altai Republic, but for technical reasons direct linking is not feasible. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think it could be redirected as there are not many articles linked to Altai Republic. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

the template for Palestine needs to be added to this. I created one, while other bilateral pages are a [short-term] future possibility. Lihaas (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

Line [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Altai{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}|Altai]]{{·w}}

should be changed into [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} the Altai Republic{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}|Altai]]{{·w}}

to avoid disambiguation. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, then line [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Tibet{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}|Tibet]]{{·w}}

should be changed into

[[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Tibet Autonomous Region{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}|Tibet]]{{·w}}

to avoid confusion. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. I did the Altai change. The Tibet change probably needs more discussion. Anything related to China / Tibet usually causes drama.... Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

There's (3+1) levels of Autonomous areas in China, Autonomous region, Autonomous prefecture,(Autonomous county and Autonomous banner) and (Ethnic township & Ethnic sumu). You do only place Autonomous areas here, and that's a kind of discrimination to small ethnic groups here. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Every Autonomous area is of equality: or you list all of them, or you list none of them. You can also choose to list the former 3 because the 4th one is not real Autonomous area(Ethnic*). --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Only Autonomous regions can be listed in here, because there are just too many of the others. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Africa template has the following code that prevents redlinks in the titles: |title = {{#if:{{{title|}}} | {{{title}}} | {{#ifexist:{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}}_Africa{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}} | [[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Africa{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}]] | {{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} Africa{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}} }} }}

See Category:Bahá'í_Faith_by_country for an example of how these templates look side by side.

Could this be implemented here too please. Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Military of Jakarta is a redlink in the Military of Asia template - but Military of Indonesia already exists (and is linked). I think this red link should probably be removed. There is an article (which is quite interesting) on Kodam Jaya which is the military region which includes Jakarta and it could have a piped link - but it is a sub article of Military of Indonesia above. Thanks Paxse (talk) 14:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Individual links can't be removed like that, the only thing that can be done is a redirect to Military of Indonesia. --Joowwww (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Disabling request per Joowwww. Pagrashtak 20:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help. Cheers, Paxse (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

It is worth noting in footnote 2 as elsewhere in the encyclopedia that "Myanmar" is also the official name for the country. Could an admin please change it to "Also and officially known as Myanmar" or simply "Officially known as Myanmar". Also, linking to the redirect "Myanmar" isn't useful in this context. Bigbluefish (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "officially", as Burma lists it. Garden. 20:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I believe this template should show link to Health care in Asia only when the article exists.LincolnSt (talk) 11:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it would if some kind admin would implement the change I requested under "Redlinks" above! AndrewRT(Talk) 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done--Aervanath (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! AndrewRT(Talk) 16:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the footnotes, italics denote a country that is not internationally recognized (or only partially so). The lead-in sentence of Wikipedia's article about Palestine (specifically, the Politics of Palestine page) says:

Although the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) is not an internationally recognized independent sovereign state … (bold emphasis is mine).

Hence, the Palestine link in all Asia topic templates should be italicized. I'd also italicize the Gaza Strip and West Bank links as well, as they're sub-sets of the main "country"; particularly given that Hamas controls Gaza and Fatah controls the West Bank. But just italicizing Palestine should be acceptable. --MicahBrwn (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no state of Palestine. In order to maintain a proper level of accuracy it needs to be changed to Palestinian Authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs)

I agree with you that there's no internationally-recognized "State of Palestine". Yet, there is a political entity known as such. After all, technically speaking, there's no such country as South Ossetia, but that doesn't prevent anyone from including it in the template, yeah? Change "Palestine" to "Palestine Authority" if you must — lets just italicize how it appears in the template, okay? --MicahBrwn (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no and has never been a state called Palestine, nor is their a political entity called such today. Please review this:

PALESTINE

There is no independent state of Palestine today, although the stated goal of the peace process is to establish a state of Palestine alongside a state of Israel. So be careful with the use of the word "Palestine" as its meaning can depend on the context.

For example, it can refer to historical Palestine or it can refer to a future state of Palestine living side by side with Israel as envisaged in the Roadmap.

[1]

ALL and EVERY mainstream news sources and encyclopedias do NOT use the term "Palestine" to refer to the territories governed by the Palestinian National Authority.

To maintain accuracy this must be changed to Palestinian Authority. --Shamir1 (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Or Palestinian Territories. Chesdovi (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is the Palestinian Territories as there is no state of Palestine.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} There is a clear consensus that the "Palestine (Gaza Strip / West Bank)" entry needs to be italicized. Please do that. StormWillLaugh (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I have now done this. I also removed the links to the West Bank and Gaza, as no other territory has subdivisions. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no article on languages of the Republic of China - it redirects to - and the article is about - Languages of Taiwan, which is hardly the same thing. For more information about the difference, please see Political status of Taiwan, Taiwan, and Republic of China. The article should be linked to as Taiwan. Taiwan is, whether under the laws of the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China, or under international law, a territory. (The Republic of China is the putative state that controls it, in addition to its other territories.) Please change accordingly.

If and when an article is written about languages in the Republic of China, that should be added to the top list under that name. As it is, it's a bit like an article called languages of England masquerading as languages of the United Kingdom. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The country Taiwan covers nearly all of the area of the state Republic of China. If there were to be an article on Languages of the Republic of China, it would likely be nearly identical to the article on languages of Taiwan. There is no need for two articles. Given the non-political nature of the subject, it is natural that the article focus on the non-political entity, Taiwan, rather than the political entity, Republic of China. Further, as the Republic of China is, as you say, the state, if we were to be very precise in our naming, an article on languages of the Republic of China would talk about the languages used by the government rather than languages used in the areas it governs. We don't need to split hairs here. People looking for information on the languages of the Republic of China should be re-directed to the Languages of Taiwan article, just as people looking for Taiwan Military should be re-directed to Military of the Republic of China. Readin (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there is no "country" of Taiwan, and that Taiwan is not all of the Republic of China. I dislike the splitting of hairs as much as the next man/woman, but we should at least aim for some precision while we can. It is simply misleading to list "Languages of Taiwan" as "Languages of the Republic of China" because the two are, well, different.

As to the "apolitical" point - whoever decided to list this as "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China" inevitably made the matter political. If they'd stuck to Mainland China and Taiwan, the issue would be completely geographical.

In fact, to strike out on a tangent, this whole "sovereign states" and "non-sovereign territories" business is almost a deliberate attempt to land everyone in a minefield. Given how many territories are in grey status (Taiwan and Palestine come immediately to mind - there are other less noticeable ones) -- this is counterproductive.

We need to either use some objective measure to determine what is a "sovereign state" and what isn't, or just abandon any pretence o judgment and simply label them all as "countries and territories". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying there is no country of Taiwan is opinion. The question of how many definitions of country fit Taiwan is contentious, but I think it is not honestly disputed that Taiwan fits at least one and maybe more of those definitions. You are right that Taiwan is not the only territory of the Republic of China - it also controls some islands on the Chinese coast. However, Republic of China is a state with a history going back to the early 1900s and territorial claims encompassing both China and Taiwan. What would an "Economy of the Republic of China" article cover? Would it not cover only a smidgen of the ROC's claimed territory? But the Economy of Taiwan article is much more precise, even if it does include the tiny islands on the coast of China. Of course, from another POV, "Taiwan" in current usage actually does cover those islands.

An important point of compromise for a long time has been that political subjects use "ROC" while non-political subjects use "Taiwan". I think it is a good compromise. I think a better way of handling it would be to use the common name "Taiwan" as is done for other states, for example we use "Mexico" instead of "United States of Mexico". But a compromise between the various POVs on what is NPOV is necessary because there is so little common ground.

whoever decided to list this as "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China". Are you willing to help me get that changed? I was involved in a long discussion where I attempted to get Taiwan listed. The eventual compromise rested on the fact that an attempt to reach an article on the ROC would forward to Taiwan if no article on the ROC existed. Readin (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying there is no country of Taiwan is opinion. That's my point. The opposite is true, as well: saying that there is such a country as Taiwan is opinion. The word "country" is a quagmire. Almost any "country" in the world can be challenged on one basis or another on its "country" status - and in the case of contentious places like Taiwan, even more so. I don't see any other "country" being listed under the full and official name of the state that controls it. Whether on the grounds of deliberate ambiguity, precision, or consistency, the current situation certainly makes no sense. It makes even less sense given the context of the current political climate, where both the ROC and the PRC governments have gone back to the "one China" principle politically, while acknowledging the practical reality of separate rule for the two areas.

For me, the ideal situation would be this: have a first level list of "countries and territories", under which all of the current "sovereign states", including Taiwan and including Palestine, would be listed geographically; thus, we would have "mainland China" and "Taiwan" as separate jurisdictions. The understanding is that this list should only list places which are completely self-governing. Thus, a federated republic of the Russian Federation, for example, would not belong in this list.

In the specific case of Taiwan, that would be understood to be "the Taiwan Area", i.e. the territories effectively administered by the ROC. Thus, where an "X in Taiwan" article does not exist, it should redirect to "X in ROC"; if both "X in Taiwan" and "X in ROC" exist, then it should direct to the latter, since the existence of both articles implies that the "X in Taiwan" article covers only Taiwan in the narrow sense.

Underneath, we can have "subsidiary regions" or some other wording that connotes that the territory in question is a subset of one of the first-level countries and regions. Hong Kong, Macau, Tibet, Kashmir etc - distinct places which are not completely self-governing can go in that list.

What do you think of that proposal? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why the complaint about Taiwan's status as a country is being made here. "Taiwan" isn't listed as a "country" in the template. The template is currently divided into "Sovereign States" and "Dependencies, autonomies, other territories", neither of which include "Taiwan" by name.

I very much like you're suggestion of listing "countries and territories" together. That would remove the need to debate whether Taiwan is a "country", a "sovereign state" or a "dependent territory". Right now, Taiwan isn't listed as "Taiwan" at all in the template, which seems completely wrong regardless of whether you equate Taiwan with Japan as being independent, or you equate it with Hong Kong as being part of China, since both Hong Kong and Japan are listed. Someone looking for information on Taiwan won't find it unless they are one of the few people who know that the official name for the state called "Taiwan" is "Republic of China".

I think trying to separate the Hong Kongs of the world from mainland Chinas will be difficult. Both mainland China and Hong Kong are territories of the People's Republic of China. What makes mainland China "self-governing" while Tibet and Hong Kong are not? Is it the mere geographical presense of the capital? Is Taiwan completely self-governing when it uses a Constititution written overseas for another country? Isn't Hong Kong self-governing? I think we and the readers would be better off if we just dumped all the areas and states together so readers can find what they're looking for by name rather than first having to know the geopolitical status. Readin (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I used "Mainland China" in the above in the sense that it is used in the Taiwanese context - i.e. including Hong Kong, including Tibet, etc. Taiwan is completely self-governing, because the government that rules the whole of Taiwan is not answerable to any other government. This is not true of Hong Kong or Tibet.

I would not be averse to the idea of just lumping everything together. However, it seems to conflate the list if we allow Hong Kong - and therefore things like the Altai Republic or Ningxia - to be listed alongsidde the first-level entities. I fear confusion for the reader. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A Min Dong dialect is spoken on the Matsu Islands. Min Dong is spoken nowhere else in the Republic of China. It is not spoken in Taiwan, and the Matsu Islands are not part of Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.131.15 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can India be changed to Republic of India ? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, because there's no other country called India, as there are two countries referred to as Korea (ROK and DPRK) and China (ROC/Taiwan and the People's Republic of China), to give two examples. --MicahBrwn (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, when America can be called the US, why can't India be called the Republic of India? It is the official name...... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Because "America" is also the name of a continent. Three continents, actually. --MicahBrwn (talk) 06:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I really don't ace about that now...but could someone look into the matter I mentioned below this? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

History of India and history of the Republic of India aren't the same thing. 112.118.149.157 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The template links to Time in India, which in turn redirects to Indian Standard Time. Can an admin modify this? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this is a generic template, and the links have to be generic. If the redirect to Indian Standard Time is inappropriate, you can of course change the destination of the redirect or create an article under that title. If there is an actual problem with it linking to Time in India (not sure why there would be), the solution is to create a new template with the desired links. As it is, I can't see any problem with the implementation of the template as it is. Warofdreams talk 13:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"{{editprotected}}"

Can a new section be created for road signs? 4 Asian countries have their own page on Road signs, see Road signs in India Road signs in Singapore Road signs in Thailand Road signs in Malaysia.... So, I was thinking, maybe a new section could be created for tis, and I could help in creation of them. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

BUMP --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again I ask... is there an admin here? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for an admin to do anything - if you want to add this template to the relevant articles, please go ahead - if you're not sure how to go about it, check the instructions transcluded on the template page. Warofdreams talk 21:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, atleast that proves how smart you are.... I requested for an admin to consider adding a secton on Road Signs in Asia to this. I know how to add templates to articles. Next time before commenting....READ. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you can create a new template called {{Road signs in Asia}} and then call this meta template as follows:

{{Asia topic
|name   = Road signs in Asia
|state  = {{{state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>}}}
|prefix = Road signs in
}}

result:

Hope this helps. –xeno^talk 12:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look, thanks a lot. :D ... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

@World of Dreams, soory for the previous comment, but you should have said something more informative....
@Xeno, I found a faster way to do it, {{Asia topic|Road signs in}}

So, I guess Template:Road signs in Asia can be deleted now? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

 deleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In the "Capital punishment in Asia" template, please make "Capital punishment" a link to "Capital punishment".--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You should put in a redirect to the desired article. Altering this template in that way would affect its use in many unrelated articles. Warofdreams talk 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Can one of the admin mark Indonesia as a transcontinental country please? I think it has a better claim to this than East Timor, partly by virtue of control of part of New Guinea.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

User Sebwite justifies removing this template form Driving Licences in India, and the corresp. article on Pakistan stating that most of the countries had red links and replaced it with an incomplete list. PLease comment on this.

"I found several navboxes each listing articles for driving licenses in each continent. But most of them are red links, and there are only a handful of such articles that do exist. Therefore, I think it is better to list all these articles on the {{traffic law}} navbox, where there is plenty of room for them, and for plenty more, should these articles be created any time soon." -Sebwite

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I like to add Northern Province Sri Lanka as sub regions category. will u please allow me to do so. thank you--BlueLankan 16:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it an autonomous region? --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 09:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

To any 'Administrator's who see this message, please include Law school in South Korea in 'South Korea' section to be active in this Asian law school template called 'List of law schools in Asia', to put this template on that page. Only as an administrator can help, so I cannot add to improve this. If anyone who see this request, please help me and this template ASAP. Thanks Million. Peterhansen2032 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

|state = autocollapse

Could you please add this line to the template. (I think the line under the template name would be fine) I would like to collapse the template in some articles. Thanks IQinn (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. No need to add this line anymore. I got to do what i wanted without it. Thank's IQinn (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be classed as transcontinental. I don't see Papua New Guinea in the nav box. VEO15 (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place here on how best to incorporate unrecognised states into a navigation template listing sovereign states and other entities. Some editors have suggested that including such states at all is pushing an imbalanced point of view. Others have made the same argument for not including them. Various conciliatory methods have been proposed, but have not acheived consensus. Editors should note that the outcome of this discussion will most likely have implications on this template aswell. For more information, please have a look at this casefile, or see the before-mentioned discussion page. Night w (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected|Template:Asia topic|Asia topic}} Update: Consensus made to include states with limited recognition based on the Europe template. A good example of how to make this change can be found on the Template:Africa topic. How ever the change should look like this(View this in the edit box to see full text);

|group2 = States with limited
recognition

|list2 =

NOTE: the current group 2 and list 2 MUST be changed to list 3 and group 3.

One can also then remove from the below sec, this; Italics indicates an unrecognised or partially recognised country. 

Thank you, if you have any problems making the change, do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. Outback the koala (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word that consensus was formed over there. That is one hell of a discussion!  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{{sudo}} Can someone (other than anyone with no knowledge of Indonesia) please explain the rational behind the following inclusions and why they shouldn't be removed from the template forthwith?

• Aceh
• Jakarta
• Yogyakarta

Many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Simply because they are three of the five provinces of Indonesia with a special status. The other two special provinces (Papua and West Papua) are also represented in the template. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 01:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What is your understanding of this "special status" and how they differ from the other 30-odd provinces- in particular Yogya and Jakarta? The "special" status for these two are that they are cities given provincial status. The "special" status is that they are classed not as "cities" but as "provinces". Indeed, compared to other Indonesian cities they are "special" but as provinces, they have no national significance higher than any other province in Indonesia. As a minimum, these two should be removed from the template forthwith. --Merbabu (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If the article Subdivisions of Indonesia is correct about these provinces, they should stay in there, because according to that article all of those five provinces have a wider range of self-determination than the rest of the provinces. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 18:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As it is clear you don't know about this issue, let me explain that Yogya and Jakarta enjoy no special autonomy. They should be removed based on your "autonomy" criteria.

Further, and why should a degree of autonomy mean they get listed separately to the rest of Indonesia? They are part of Indonesia and administered as such - any differences that you might be basing your well-informed position are relatively minor and inconsequential. The reality is that the national govt has overwhelming administrative control over these two areas - indeed, all five of them. Any additional administrative power of recent decentralisation efforts by-passed the provinces and went from national to regency level. Their placement here (and your apparent support) is pure, albeit well-meaning, original research and WP:SYN. THe state of US "territory" of New Hampshire enjoys more autonomy than these two.

I'd make the change, but this monster template that effects so many pages is locked down. --Merbabu (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: please continue to discuss and replace the request when you have an agreement. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's factually incorrect. It was put in without any reference. Jakarta and Yogyakarta have no special autonomy, there is no reference, sourcing, discussion on this page and it's clear that one person disagreeing with me does not know what they are talking about - why else would they cite an unreferenced wikipedia article - which doesn't support their claim anyway. --Merbabu (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with removing Jakarta and Yogyakarta. I'm not specifically knowledgeable of the Indonesian provincial status, but was just reading quickly what was said about them in the articles about the subdivisions of Indonesia. However, Aceh should definately be in here, as it e.g. has a partially independent legislation, and that's what caught my attention. If the article that tells us about the subdivisions of Indonesia is correct, Yogyakarta could be included although its a borderline case that would give us very little advantage, Jakarta probably not, as it's quite common for capitals to have some sort of a special status. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 18:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jakarta and Yogyakarta - argument makes sense; the way the template displayed these two alongside, say, Palestine or Tibet appeared to be advocating a rather strange POV. Australian Capital Territory or the various federal territories in Malaysia seem analogous to the two cities' status. Orderinchaos 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} The template currently links to Sakha which is a disambiguation page. It should be piped to [[Sakha Republic|Sakha]] -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add Dams_in_Burma#Hydroelectric link to Burma in Template:List of hydroelectric power stations in Asia-Marcus334 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me where the template is used? Correct way would be to change the article the template points to into a redirect page that points to a correct page. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In this template, can "Parliament of Japan" (the link highlighted in the template) be replaced with "Diet of Japan", particularly since the former is a redirect to the latter, please? --Daniel Blanchette 06:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible to partially rename single links in this template. That's one reason why the "Parliament of Japan" is a redirect to the "Diet of Japan". --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 12:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A good example of the genius of the template and its versatility. One size fits all, right? --Merbabu (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the following template

Fix the link of Pakistan to List of Television Stations in Pakistan with 'Television' and 'Stations' in capital. Thanks —--Managerarc (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The article should be moved to List of television stations in Pakistan. And like told so many times before: it is not possible to fix parts of singular links in this template. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, make the move—--Managerarc (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Demographics of Tibet needs to be disambiguated, preferably to Tibet Autonomous Region#Demographics. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Done --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Name of Tibet also needs to be disambiged to Tibet#Names. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote, is the first edit NPOV? Outback the koala (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the demographics info at the article I linked to is more thorough that that of the Tibet article. I also disambiged my prior comment. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Outback the koala (talk) 04:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} In the template {{Asia topic|List of universities in}}, the link List of universities in the Philippines redirects to List of universities and colleges in the Philippines. Please fix. --Pgallert (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can do anything about this. You could call {{Asia topic|List of universities and colleges in}} instead, but this would change all the links. There is no way to change it just for one country. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a stupid request. I'll move the pages instead so that the template can be left alone. --Pgallert (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} For the "Parliament of Palistine" link titled Palistine should be changed to link the Palestinian National Authority to it instead of having a blank/nonexistant link. MTWEmperor (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have created a redirect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I AMAMEDULLA.KHAN from VIZAG from india working in soudi arabia I had a question in my mind, I wana know wether the geographical area of INDIA is equal to geographical area of SAUDI ARABIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.167.35.209 (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia is 2/3rds the size of India. Outback the koala (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}} Please help There is a superfluous dot after South Ossetia. Please change the following line:

[[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} South Ossetia{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}|South Ossetia]]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}{{wrap}}{{nowrap end}}

to:

[[{{{1|{{{prefix|}}}}}} South Ossetia{{{2|{{{suffix|}}}}}}|South Ossetia]]{{smallsup|1}}{{nowrap end}}

Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done. --CapitalR (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can the template Protestantism in asia be unprotected please- link work needed.andycjp (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that is not possible, because this template is very complex. If there are articles that don't follow this template's naming conventions, feel free to change the non-existing pages into redirects for the proper article. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 05:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tibet aside, because Tibet activists always wants to add a flag that is just not officially used and banned where it's suposed to represent...And I'm just stay out of that one...but whose brilliant idea is it to add all 'autonomous regions' of China here. Autonomous region is a communist label, they're all basically provinces. Besides, those areas don't even have their own province/regional flags. What's next? How about me going around adding flags of every native American tribe to the flags of North American template? Or how about flags of every U.S. state too? Hey, they're all dependent territories. You know, I never thought I'd find see this much anti-China POV in a flag template. NPOV in Wikipedia is becoming a big joke with bias in just about every article you can find. Pal2002 (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the use of this template in the article Flags of Asia and other related articles, then the links you talk about are clearly red, thus those articles are not present. This template is used just to make navigation between a wide variety of subjects easier, and it cannot be edited, because it would be NPOV on one or two specific subjects. Where in this template there is a flag of Tibet? Those provinces are included in here because PRC defines them as autonomous regions, and says that they have more self governance than other provinces. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 13:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Altai, Yogyakarta, and Buryatia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.130.121 (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

History of India and history of the Republic of India, e.g., are not referring to the same thing. Would special syntax be added to link to the correct articles about the modern state of India? And I'd expect something similar to happen with Korea and the modern Koreas, and perhaps Taiwan and the Republic of China too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.130.121 (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's much easier to add notification on the top of the page this template directs to, like on the page History of India. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 19:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please update templates to show Palestinian territories instead of Palestine. It is wrong to have Palestine listed as a country, because at this point there is no such country. The geographic regions comprising of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are known as the Palestinian territories. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 06:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Lionessofgd, 19 May 2010

{{editprotected}} Palestine belongs under the sub-section of "dependencies, autonomies, other territories", not under "states with limited recognition" and should be changed to Palestinian Authority. A State of Palestine is not in existence in any form; Instead, there is the Palestinian Authority government, which controls Gaza and certain areas of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria). The Palestinian Authority, however, is not a state government and best fits under the sub-category of "other territories". Thank you.

Lionessofgd (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that proposal will need discussing first. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think much discussion is needed. There's no argument... no state or country of "Palestine" exists today, and it's a problem that our templates on Wikipedia are presenting it as if it does. This is misleading to users, so we should change it. Breein1007 (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

How can I bring this to the attention of someone who will make the change? The error has been in place for far too long. Breein1007 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know Palestine as a state is recognized by several countries, although the exact number is unknown and many of the recognitions have some sort of limiting clauses in them. Some of them recognize it as State of Palestine and others as Palestinian National Authority. See State of Palestine#International_recognition for more details. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

As a state, you are absolutely correct. As a country, no. Nobody believes that the State of Palestine controls any territory, because it doesn't. The template identifies "Palestine" as a country - this is incorrect. Breein1007 (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually on second look I see that it's under states with limited recognition, which is better... but still, it links to Palestine which is wrong. I think the best way would be to label it as Palestinian territories under the "Other territories" section, because then we are talking about the actual land (West Bank and Gaza Strip), rather than the theoretical State of Palestine which currently controls no territory. Breein1007 (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's where the problem is, because where to link it. There is the Palestinian National Authority which is closest to being the de facto government of palestine. Then there is the State of Palestine which has significant international recognition, membership in some international organizations and same president as PNA. Then there are Palestinian territories, which is just a geographical area. And finally Palestine, by which name the PLO/State of Palestine has been granted full observer rights in the UN. I'm pretty neutral on which to use, but I think that this should not be changed without more extensive discussion. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 06:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a convincing request in the slightest. Breein1007 speaks in terms of "countries" -- well, "Palestinian territories" is hardly a country. The recognition accorded to "Palestine" by dozens of countries around the world gives us a big clue as to the right approach here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dozens of countries do not recognize "Palestine" as a country. Nobody thinks that "Palestine" controls any territory. It is not a country in any reasonable sense of the definition. "Palestinian territories" is not a country either, you're right. That's why it should be moved to the other section. It is not a country regardless of what it's called. Breein1007 (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Some recognize it, others don't. That's why it's in the States with limited recognition section. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jhattara. Outback the koala (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan should be added to the list or People's Republic of China should be shortened to China —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumirp (talk • contribs) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Territories such as Ningxia, Xinjiang, Altai, Yogyakarta, Buryatia, Guangxi are not countries to be listed. Others such as the BIOT are uninhabited except military and government personnels.

Certainly agree about Yogyakarta. --Merbabu (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What can be done with it? 116.49.135.38 (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we keep only Akrotiri and Dhekelia, the BIOT, Christmas Island, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Hong Kong, and Macau? The others aren't countries at all. They aren't territories that would appear for international comparisons. And these are always dead links on this template. 116.49.135.38 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree it should be kept on this template, but if it is to be kept, it should be linked to the Tibet Autonomous Region. 116.49.135.38 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please add Kashmir as Autonomous region

77.69.195.30 (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir is constitutionally not part of Pakistan. Gilgit-Baltistan is also self-governing. 116.49.135.38 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

why is it called Burma here? There would be no need for the all the added caveats if the official name was used as in the case of Taiwan (and if the caveat is used then it should be as in Taiwan (although it is still not "commonly" known as Burma outside the west)Lihaas (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please add Racism in the Palestinian territories to the last field and remove Palestine from pen-ultimate field.. Chesdovi (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently creating Category:Health in Southeast Asia to devolve the larger template - this may in turn reflect on all Asian templates - anyone interested in helping to indicate how to create a Southeast Asia template? SatuSuro 12:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I was wondering, wouldn't it make sense to switch the entries on the ROC (with Taiwan in a footnote) to Taiwan with a footnote saying something like "officially title Republic of China"? The articles are Communications in Taiwan, Transportation in Taiwan, etc - I don't see why the templates should have a link to a redirect. John Smith's (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1. REDIRECT Template:Edit protected/preload

The title of this text box should read "Constitutions of Asia", viz. the final "s" in Constitutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.224.74.249 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not an edit for this textbox (unless you are proposing a special plural handler), but of the articles for the Constitutions in Asia that include it, using {{Asia topic|Constitution of}}. It's not a mistake, because it uses that same "Constitution of" to link to Constitution of Afghanistan, Constitution of Armenia, etc. There are few articles like Constitutions of Afghanistan. Quigley (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please remove Georgia from the list. Capital punishment is abolished since 2000 [1].

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Georgia_(country)

94.240.227.32 (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What has that got to do with this template? Algebraist 20:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The ROC should be in the States with Limited Recognition section. It's recognised by just over 20 other states, it should not be in the Sovereign states section if that other section exists. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} As there are no objections so far... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done - no objection, and given that the ROC isn't recognized by something like half of countries, it seems reasonble. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Based upon the criteria employed elsewhere in this template, the following territories should also have a superscript 1, to indicate that they are sometimes considered in Europe:

• Nagorno-Karabakh

• Northern Cyprus

• Akrotiri and Dhekelia

• Nakhchivan

Davshul (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that these changes have not yet been implemented. As Akrotiri & Dhekelia and Northern Cyprus are on the island of Cyprus, if Cyprus is marked with a superscript 1 to indicate it is sometimes considered in Europe, so should Akrotiri & Dhekelia and Northern Cyprus. Similarly, Nagorno-Karabakh and Nakhchivan should be marked with a superscript 1 as they within Azerbaijan, which is marked with a superscript 1. Would as administrator please implement these minor, but correct, changes. Davshul (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

I concur also with this minor change also. Edit protected Template Added. Outback the koala (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Nakhchivan considered part of Europe? Azerbaijan is Europe per border along the caucasus, which doesn't include Nakhchivan. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please reactivate the request when you have decided what is correct. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The exact border between Europe and Asia in the Caucasus is by no means fixed, taking into account both geographical and political considerations. This template and Template:Europe topic take a broad view as to which territories to include. It is illogical not to show Nakhchivan as possibly being considered part of Europe, while considering certain others as being part of Europe. Furthermore, if Nakhchivan is to be considered exclusively part of Asia (that is, not marked with a superscript 1), then Azerbaijan would have to be considered as a "Transcontinental country" (similar to Russia, Turkey and Kazakhstan) and marked accordingly in both this template and the Europe template. Accordingly, I propose that the suggested edit is implemented. (There is clearly no dispute regarding the other three territories mentioned). Davshul (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

More confusingly, Georgia is currently marked as transcontinental. I think this is done by using the border definition is along the peaks of the Caucasus. The Europe template is in a pretty bad shape too. I'd be happy with Azerbaijan labelled as transcontinental. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

New suggestion

In regards to moving forward, I think that note 1 should be changed from "Sometimes included in Europe, depending on the border definitions" to "Sometimes partially or fully included in or associated with Europe". Perhaps more wordy, but covers everything neutrally, and can account for most questions. After that I'd recommend shifting Georgia from note 4 to note 1, and adding the note to All the Cyprus areas, and all Azerbaijan areas (the ones mentioned at the start of this). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think all of these notes are stupid. The focus for templates should be on navigation, instead of annoying technicality notes. Who cares if Georgia is a transcontinental country? All the reader cares about is getting to the right page. Can we not simply stick to the entries listed in this list, and leave the technicalities for actual articles? If a reader wants to know more about what constitutes "Asia", they need only click on the top link. Nightw 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree fully with Chipmunkdavis's "New suggestion". If implemented, a similar change should be made to Template:Europe topic. Davshul (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

Will an editor please link the Hong Kong link to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (Hong Kong) article, please? Thank you.

Lcyw20 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done - linking to the main article is more appropriate. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

The current wiki-link for Hong Kong links to Supreme Court (Hong Kong) ‎and not Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong) which has been the 'Supreme Court' in HK since 1997.--Cahk (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me where you saw this link? Because this template doesn't produce links to supreme courts. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See the bottom of Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong).--Cahk (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, you seem to be referring to a Wikilink in the article Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong), nothing to do with this template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesBWatson (talk • contribs)

The template of Supreme Courts of Asia indicated the Supreme Court for HK is SCHK (true pre-1997) but the HKCFA is the current one. I tried editing the template but only admin can do it.--Cahk (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify - if you scroll down past external links, you'll see the Supreme Courts of Asia template box ... if I click edit, it leads to Template:Asia topic (which is protected for admin editing only) - that's the one I like to get edited.--Cahk (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the question now. The article produces the navbox by calling {{Asia topic|Supreme Court of}}. This does call this template which produces links in the form Supreme Court of <Country>. In other words we cannot change this behaviour by editing this template. Here is the best way to fix this problem:

• Merge the content of Supreme Court (Hong Kong) into High Court (Hong Kong). They are about the same court, so this shouldn't be a problem.
• Create a redirect from Supreme Court (Hong Kong) to Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong).

If you need help with any of this, please let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The suggestion to resolve the earlier discussion on this topic (see above) was never implemented. To recap, the following territories should also have a superscript 1, to indicate that they are sometimes considered in Europe:

• Nagorno-Karabakh
• Northern Cyprus
• Akrotiri and Dhekelia
• Nakhchivan

In addition:

• Note 1 should be changed from "Sometimes included in Europe, depending on the border definitions" to "Sometimes partially or fully included in or associated with Europe".
• Georgia marked with superscript 1 instead of superscript 4.

The present template lacks consistency. Davshul (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The alternative is not to have any notes at all. Nightw 08:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem in removing all these notes. My previous proposal was merely to achieve consistency, which, as you pointed out, is also achieved by removing all notes. Davshul (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. That's a surprise actually, I was expecting you to object! Okay, well, the proposal is still open for probably another few days. If nobody else comments, I'll go ahead with it. Nightw 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The link to the disambig page Demographics of Tibet should be fixed. Either link to the demographics of the Autonomous Region or remove the link altogether. bamse (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Autonomous areas, and topics about them, will have information included in the articles of the topics of the actual country. Autonomous status also differs greatly in meaning, from just a title to complete political independence. I propose removing them from the template due to the redundancy of their information already being in the article of their country, and no real reason for inclusion. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the info is redundant to the main country articles. And, as Chipmunk alludes too, the listing of the Indonesian provinces is particularly flawed.

I presume the “autonomous” regions in the template are listed here because someone has decided they are effectively an independent country, and therefore should be listed separately to, well, the country to which they belong. But, a *degree* of autonomy by *name* is a lot different to actual and effective autonomy. With Indonesian examples at least, I see more of the former than the latter. Yes, those 3 Indonesian regions may have a few more concessions to placate separatists in comparison to other Indonesian provinces, but like the others, they are still cemented in as part of the unitary state of Indonesia. Their economic, educational, foreign, defence, and all other significant government policy and economic activity are all driven from the central government in Jakarta. Indeed, every US state is more autonomous than these Indonesian territories that are subject to the strong central government of the unitary state - both nationalists and separatists would love and/or cry respectively at any suggestion otherwise.

In summary, I suggest the Indonesian “autonomous” regions are removed post haste.

Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Detailed proposal: Remove Aceh, Adjara, Altai, Buryatia, Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Iraqi Kurdistan, Khakassia, Nakhchivan, Ningxia, Papua, Sakha Republic, Tibet, Tuva, West Papua, Xinjiang, and the word autonomies from the group label (which would leave "Dependencies and other territories") Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am seconding this proposal, especially for the Chinese "autonomous" regions, because like Indonesia, China is a unitary state where the political systems of its main subdivisions are not sufficiently different to justify separate articles. It also acknowledges the reality that most of the articles on the "autonomies"' topics were created as redirects to the main country's respective topic articles. It's simply not practical to write good articles for all of these subdivisions, even if the differences were significant; the example from {{North America topic}} is telling: there are not separate places on the template for each of the fifty United States. A separate place in the template should be reserved for places with radically different systems than the main country, such as Hong Kong or Macau. Quigley (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just saw this. I've already implemented the ISO guidelines on {{Asian topic}}. The only difference between that and your proposal here is the additional removal of Akrotiri and Dhekalia. Being military bases, there isn't likely to be any topic articles pertaining to them anyway. Nightw 06:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please change group3 and list3 on the template to match exactly {{Asian topic}}. Quigley (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I also second that change. --Merbabu (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 Administrator note I will get to this request when I have time, but it would speed things up if you could update Template:Asia topic/sandbox with the required code. I suggest that it would be useful to merge the two templates in the long-term but this will be a little more complicated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

So done. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done but should the group3 title be updated to reflect the changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A great improvement. Many thanks. A number, or even most, of those locations were put into the template without discussion. When first questioned last year, the logic to justify keeping them was at best flimsy (I’d say simply wrong), so I’m glad to see them now finally removed given this template’s massive scope and extent of usage. Cheers --Merbabu (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the group3 title should be changed to match {{Asian topic}} too. Quigley (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please add Akrotiri and Dhekelia, or else remove Cyrpus. 58.153.97.157 (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia are not included as they do not have their own ISO code. A case for their inclusion could be made though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's part of Asia and it isn't part of any of the countries included in this box. It's neither part of Cyprus or the TRNC. What should be done with, let's say, the article Languages of Akrotiri and Dhekelia? 58.153.97.157 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it should be deleted. Nightw 10:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it should remain - it's a British overseas territory (albeit a special one - but such kind of territories are all more or less "special"). Also, British Indian Ocean Territory should be added.

It's not part of Cyprus and TRNC but this is not an argument to remove it - the templates include all dependencies/autonomies of a particular continent - regardless of their "owner" - for example Africa template includes multiple French, British, Spanish, Portuguese "dependencies" - regardless of the european origin of their "owners". Alinor (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The origin is not the reason for their removal from this template. The template is meant to serve as a framework navigation, so smaller territories are not included. For example, the sister Oceania template does not include a large number of territories, as specific articles probably will never be made. As for Languages of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, it should be merged and redirected, although I can't see anything to merge. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you think redirect to Languages of Cyprus or Languages of the United Kingdom? Nightw 07:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Languages of Cyprus. It's not like Akrotiri and Dhekelia have special languages, and I'm fairly sure redirecting to Languages of the United Kingdom would provide political issues. Alternatively, Akrotiri and Dhekelia#Demographics would be an option, from which a link to Languages of Cyprus should be found. In fact, I'll add that link now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

But Languages of Cyprus does not exist! Cyprus#Languages does. How on earth is there a Languages of Akrotiri and Dhekelia but not a Languages of Cyprus? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah sweet bureaucracy! Nightw 08:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

On the Europe topic template there are some parameters that allow some rows/entries to be hidden, when the specific topic isn't suitable for these (such as "Islam in the Vatican City") - the same can be applied here. Alinor (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

If you know how to do that, I'd be fine with the addition, provided it was default off. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The criteria is an ISO code. If it doesn't have this, there'd better be a good reason for inclusion. I'd need to see a few articles or at least one case where inclusion would be required. Islam in Akrotiri and Dhekelia? No. Religion in Akrotiri and Dhekelia? No. Languages? No. Any "article" of this nature comes under G1: Patent nonsense, meaningles, useless. Nightw 08:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

just add this link in template, one word change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Asia_topic&action=edit --Palapa (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what exactly the problem is? What articles this template isn't functioning on? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed: Just needed a redirect for the template "Nuclear energy in Asia", which is transcluded in pages like Nuclear power in Pakistan. Nightw 11:01, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The links to articles must be disambiguated to reflect redirections, such as Time in Macau which redirected to Time in China#Macau. Also, do we have to keep red links of a non-existing article? Also, the design of the template must be changed. Gh87 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This template is just a base, off which many new ones can be formed. The Time situation must be dealt with through redirects. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

For consistency with most Wiki articles (e.g. Palestinian territories, 2011 in the Palestinian territories), "Palestine" should be chnaged to "Palestinian territories" in this Template. Davshul (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't be Palestine. Perhaps State of Palestine would be better. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the generic "Palestine" is helpful since it avoids specifying and thus links can point to articles about the territories where those about the state don't exist yet. And the official name of the state is still Palestine. Night w2 (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

In the banner heading to the Wikipedia article Palestine, it states that the article "is about the historical geographical area" of Palestine (which includes Israel). The banner adds "[f]or the West Bank and Gaza Strip" (to which this item in the Template relates), "see Palestinian territories". The use of "Palestine" in ambiguous and unhelpful and "Palestinian territories" is the Wikipedia preferred term. The use of the term State of Palestine is somewhat contentious Davshul (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does it say that "Palestinian territories" is the Wikipedia preferred term? The Palestinian territories are an autonomous unit, so they wouldn't appear in the category "states with limited recognition", where the State of Palestine must be included to comply with protocol. Night w2 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be Palestinian territories - this is how the area in question is currently referred to. Number 57 10:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 10:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's important to remember that this template is not designed to appear in this exact form anywhere in the wiki. That's what Template:Countries of Asia is for. Instead, this will only link to the titles in the text plus whatever the prefix is. So it will when used properly link to say, Geography of. In which case it would either lead to Geography of Palestine or Geography of the Palestinian territories. Difficult to determine which is more appropriate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

History is another. There are articles on the history of Palestine, the Palestinian territories, and the State of Palestine. Messy. Night w2 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)