This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
There are not two, but three different templates. One shows the States, and the second shows the foreign relations of States, third international recognition of these States. Each has its own purpose and each refers to the other pages. Therefore, all templates should be retained. With the proposed merger of I disagree. Jan CZ (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe that in this template, China and Taiwan should be referred to by their official names: People's Republic of China and the Republic of China. This may make it easier for people to pick up on why Taiwan is unrecognized. Fizikanauk, please reply to this, as you have been the one undoing my edits. [Soffredo] 18:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
All the other entities use their respective article name in this template. I cannot see any reason that China/Taiwan have any excuse to be an exception. Fizikanauk (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but I must note that on many articles containing countries that are listed by their common terms with the exception of China and Taiwan. TBrandley (T • C • B) 23:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
States with Partial Recognition. All of these States have (except for one) have partial recognition. All of these states (except for one) have limited recognition. Partial being akin to "the glass is half full" and Limited being akin to "the glass is half empty". It's not a big deal either way, however.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd suggest raising this at List of states with limited recognition, as any changes here would have to be replicated there. IMO there's not much difference between the two, though possibly a slight emphasis one way or the other. What's the most neutral way of putting it? 'Without full' perhaps? I'd be weakly against changing simply because of the line "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed" in Wikipedia:Article titles. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)