Template talk:Oceania topic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template name[edit]

Per here, would anyone object to this template being renamed {{Oceania topic}}, thereby leaving the of/in specified by its parameter (e.g. {{Oceania topic|Communications in}}, {{Oceania topic|Economy of}}, etc)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

modify away... --Bob 00:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How is it decided which countries belong to which region? It's ridiculous to place Indonesia in Melanesia and New Zealand is more often regarded as part of Australasia. Anyway, the template is different to Template:Countries and territories of Oceania. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Indeed. Can someone (registered, as it's semi-locked) please put New Zealand into Australasia? Someone put it in Polynesia earlier, which is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add to Polynesia[edit]

Could someone add the following list to Polynesia region (and include Hawaii list too?) with some minor but not otherwised listed airports List of airports in United States minor islands. Template looks too forbidding! NB: no pages written yet for Baker Island Airport, Jarvis Airport. Hugo999 (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you might misunderstand the purpose of this template. The template takes a parameter such as "List of airports in" and generates a display containing "List of airports in Australia", "List of airports in Christmas Island" etc, all with country/territory names. It can't include airports which don't match the basic format, although you can create redirects where articles don't match the given naming pattern.
Were you asking for a similar template applying to islands of Polynesia, or for a custom template? It would not be appropriate to add minor islands to this template, since there would be very few articles on those islands matching the many topics this template is already used for.-gadfium 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For most islands of Oceania you can get to any page via the main Oceania template, and to Airfields via the Airports of Oceania template (even to the Airfield on Pitcairn when/if it is built). But Wake Island and Johnston Atoll cannot be accessed this way, though as the only population is for any bases on them there are not many articles. I just think that you should be able to access the main and airport pages via the template; either by individual name or via a "US Minor Outlying Islands" page. Plus the other odd page eg on the extinct Wake Island Rail. Hugo999 (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • NB: Midway is part of Hawaii, and Palmyra Atoll is part of the Line Islands (but not of Kiribati), so may have some links that way.
What you seem to be suggesting is to add United States Minor Outlying Islands to the template. I think this would fit better under Micronesia than Polynesia. However, adding territories which are not countries is likely to be controversial. I notice we do not list Hawaii, for example. We do list some territories such as Christmas Island.
I believe the appropriate place to discuss this is at Template talk:Countries and territories of Oceania. At the very least, if you wish to propose this addition, you should advertise this at that talk page, and also at Talk:Oceania.-gadfium 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is Indonesia no longer included on this navbox when a prefix is used? Articles like List of airlines of Indonesia should be linked from this navbox when corresponding prefixes are added. Neelix (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kiritimati / Christmas Island[edit]

I do believe the link to Christmas Island ist wrong (Indian Ocean Australian Territory). Please link to Kiritimati. --Awilms (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The template isn't supposed to be linking to individual islands within an Oceanic country, so a link to Kiritimati is not correct. However, I do not understand why it links to Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which are Australian territories in the Indian Ocean. They appear to be well to the west of the Wallace Line which is one method of differentiating Melanesia from South East Asia.-gadfium 18:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Cocos (Keeling) Islands[edit]

Why the template includes The Cocos (Keeling) Islands??? -- Seulimeung (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for topic templates[edit]

A centralised proposal regarding the use of superscript notes in navigation boxes is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. The disussion will affect this template. Nightw 12:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I made some different changes, will list.

1) Moved the Cook Islands and Niue from Sovereign states. Their status as sovereign states is debatable (for example, they have New Zealand citizenship).

2) Added Timor-Leste in brackets after East Timor. Noting official title with wikipedia one. Also for the adding of similar brackets containing Ivory Coast and Myanmar on others, as they are the three countries with name issues on wikipedia.

3) Moving integral areas of Chile and the United States into sovereign states section (such as Easter Island/Hawaii). They aren't dependencies, and so parts of the states were in Oceania. However, due to the generally accepted status of those countries in the Americas, added the Oceanian parts and wikilinked them (as this topic will then get the articles about the Oceanian parts).

4) Removed autonomies. Don't see the reason to list them all and clutter the topic, especially considering the differences between all the different levels of autonomy. Besides, they'd be included in the lists of the states they are in.

5) Added other territories which previously weren't included.

6) Dewikilinked territory. The wikilink led to a specific definition not covered in this template.

Ta, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that changes #'s 1, 2, and 4 are appropriate, but I have concerns about #'s 3, 5, and 6. With respect to #3, the integral areas of Chile and the United States are not dependencies, but they are territories. This problem is related to #6. The word "territories" should link to Territory (country subdivision), not Sovereign territory as it currently does. I do believe that the territories should be listed separately from the sovereign states, as occurs in the other continent template generators. As for #5, the additions do not appear to fit the usage of this template generator. Most of the templates created by this generator relate to people (ex. "Education in Oceania", "Transport in Oceania", "Music of Oceania"). Places like Kingman Reef and Jarvis Island don't have any inhabitants, so the corresponding links on the generated templates would forever be red. Neelix (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, well.
3/6) The completely unreferenced Territory (country subdivision) seems to be about any sort of division of control by a sovereign state. It goes from Canadian territories to territories as Austrian Lander to occupied territories. It could be used to mean everything, so by itself isn't useful at all as a sorting criteria.
5) That makes sense for education etc., but what if it's used for something like "Geography of..."? I agree to your point about uninhabited, but perhaps there can be a way to have them while automatically hiding them, so they can be turned on using some code? The Sovereign states of Europe does something fancy with the UK countries. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3/6) I am confused by your suggestion that Territory (country subdivision) is not a useful sorting criterion; the version of the template that you are advocating still maintains the territories as a sorting criterion, but simply moves them to the "sovereign states" section rather than the "dependencies and other territories" section. Surely "divisions of sovereign states not otherwise considered part of Oceania" (what is meant by "territory" in this context) is an appropriate grouping.
5) I would be glad to see the uninhabited areas included in the template only when specified; I do not, however, know how to make that happen. Feel free to institute that change if you are able to figure out the code. A simpler option would be to create hardcoded templates for the few exceptions for which the uninhabited areas would be included; I do not expect that many of these uninhabited areas will accrue a large number of related articles. Neelix (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3/6) I didn't use that as a sorting criteria. I just took the integral smaller political units of sovereign states out of the dependencies and others section, into the sovereign states section. The USA and Chile are both sovereign states with territory in Oceania, however for the sake of getting lists in Oceania per the purpose of the template I only wikilinked the oceanian areas of the country.
5) Noted, will try figure it out. Perhaps in a perfect world they'd have articles... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3/6) As Easter Island and Hawaii are not sovereign states in themselves but are rather part of larger sovereign states, would you find it acceptable to leave them in the second section? That is how the other continental template generators function. Neelix (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems wrong, as it prima facie gives them the appearance of a similar position to dependencies (to me at least), which they are not, being fully integral. I also find it useful to note that the USA and Chile are states in Oceania, like Indonesia currently is despite unclear boundary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps it would be best to discuss this particular point at a more centralized location as it pertains to all the continental template generators. How would you feel about drafting a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography? Neelix (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noted. Reverted off the other generators I'd edited. Will notify when I get the proposal done (unless you have it watchlisted) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit request from , 18 November 2011[edit]

I want to edit the Temaplate which is named Football in Oceania, because I have some new referenced information ta add.( (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC))Reply[reply] (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information should be added somewhere in Oceania#Sports. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cook Islands, Niue[edit]

DLinth recently repeatedly makes edits to the template that make it inconsistent with the List of sovereign states. The navigation template groups are arranged by looking into two articles (List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition, which is its subset):

Cook Islands and Niue are currently included in the List of sovereign states. CMD confirmed that at his talk page, 15:17, 5 March 2012. Also, they are NOT included in the List of states with limited recognition. That's why they should be in the "Sovereign states" group of the template.

I suggested to DLinth that if he doesn't agree that Cook Islands and Niue are fully independent sovereign states - then he should suggest at Talk:List of sovereign states those two to be removed from the List of sovereign states. Also, if he thinks that they have only limited recognition - he should suggest that they are added to the List of states with limited recognition at Talk:List of states with limited recognition. Until one of these two things happens they should be in the "Sovereign states" group of the template. Japinderum (talk) 06:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why do you keep mentioning that I confirmed they are in a list? It appears as a very strange argument. The list is there, anyone can confirm it. Link to the page, or even a specific point in the page history. My individual opinion is far, far less meaningful than the combined opinions of the editors who dealt with that page. CMD (talk) 13:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took your suggestions to move this to here:

Sorry to clutter your talk page - please answer here. Japinderum (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neither of you is more or less disruptive than the other. Technically DLinth is maintaining the status quo, so it's Japinderum's burden to argue for the change, but either way, this is unproductive. Did any of your varied discussions reach any conclusions? CMD (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I'm trying a "States with Limited Recognition" compromise that more closely matches the categories used for the Asia, Europe, Africa, Americas template. CMD, Japinderum, you've heard everything below before: As much as CI and Niue (like Taiwan) are a bad fit for the ever-present "other" de facto list (Abhazia, Azawad, Somaliland, etc.,) nobody but nobody among WP:V sources such as World Factbook or US Dept. of State list of independent states or the UN, etc. list these two in the list of ~195 fully independent states.
The long debate on the talk page for List of Sovereign States put them in this "other" list category where they remain on 50+ WP pages, often in italics (indicating non-full independence.) They are not with the ~195 in the "top" lists. BTW, as you know, neither CI or Niue has declared independence (one voted against it years ago), and of the ~195 on the fully independent WP, UN, etc. lists, every single one is recognized by at least 100 other states. CI and Niue are recognized by one or two or three other states. So being in the "top" fully independent list is a non-starter until they declare independence, no longer hold New Zealand citizenships, get full UN membership, get recognized by dozens and dozens of other states, or something actually changes other than WP editors' opinions. So this "States with Limited Recognition" is a sensible compromise for this template.DLinth (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted that back to the simple two list division. I appreciate the attempt at compromise, but the CI/Niue don't have limited recognition. No countries go "The Cook Islands are not sovereign", so their recognition is not limited in that sense. Instead they're quite happy to just leave a nice grey area, rather like the CI/Niue have. You are right however that they are rarely included in the full list of states. They are actually included like this in some instances, but it's clearly uncommon and we search for specific examples of this, while the disclusion is generally simply evident. If you would acknowledge that they are sometimes included together in such lists, that would be a step forward. It's not black and white, so don't argue in black and white. (This goes for Japinderum too, don't think I'm singling you out.) Regards, CMD (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No countries go "St. Helena is not sovereign" or "Virgin Islands are not sovereign", etc. either (in official documentation), as you know. As you know, it's a subtractive process: Every other state on the main (top) part of List of Sovereign States (and the top part of EVERY regional template (Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.)) is "recognized by" (meaning some sort of official diplomatic relations) by 150 to 190+ other states.) Niue and Cook Is. are recognized by only a handful. For that and other reasons (citizenship, have not declarded independence), they don't belong in the "top" lists.
Yet they have sovereignty in so many areas, they don't belong in a list titled "dependencies.." either, a contention of Japinderum's with which I agree. So I thought the compromise was viable. Could "other states" or "other states with a large degree of sovereignty" be used to title that second category? (Since CI and Niue are so unique?)DLinth (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neither St Helena or the Virgin Islands are states with limited recognition, so I don't understand how that point applies. What do you mean by recognition? Users here have managed to eek out a small few minor diplomatic notes online where a few countries call the Cook Islands a sovereign state. I haven't found these very strong, and in any case, we simply don't know the position of other states. Not every state has expressed recognition of South Sudan either, but it doesn't have limited recognition. There's a reason that when I organised all these templates I made sure the separation title was "Dependencies and other territories". I hoped it would be able to encapsulate the many grey areas (which are not limited to the CI/Niue). A foolish hope perhaps. I'd like to see some sort of definition for "non-sovereign state" before we start using similar terms, although I'm not opposed to some sort of special compromise, as as you say they are extremely unique. "Politically independent entites"? CMD (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't know you organized the templates....they are consistent...well done. I was trying to make a (futile) attempt to keep that consistency here. I definitely commiserate with the noble attempt to placate "everyone" with the "and other territories" language. I think your last sentence is the best solution I've seen; justification: these two really are unique (even their own international maritime boundary treaties!)DLinth (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the number of lists that include CI/Niue among the rest of the sovereign states - actually diplomatic sources do that pretty commonly (in contrast to layman journalists, blogs, people on the street, random maps, atlases and encyclopedias with less reliability than Wikipedia, high school teachers, etc.) - you can see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], there are several dozens more where those came from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japinderum (talkcontribs) 12:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CI and Niue are neither dependencies nor "other territories" (here this means "territories other than sovereign states and other than dependencies"). This isn't simply my opinion, or the opinion of the international diplomatic community and sources (which doesn't seem enough to convince DLinth here). This is the conclusion according to the List of sovereign states. CMD, I refer to your confirmation that CI and Niue are listed there, because it seems that DLinth doesn't admit that fact. He instead speaks of some "other list", "limited recognition" and "de facto". I don't know what this "other sovereign state" means according to DLinth, but CI and Niue are not in the List of states with limited recognition (but it again seems that DLinth doesn't admit that, so maybe CMD or somebody else should confirm it too).
I don't think that this is the place to discuss whether CI and Niue are fully independent sovereign states (instead go to Talk:List of sovereign states)
I don't think that this is the place to discuss whether CI and Niue have only limited recognition (instead go to Talk:List of states with limited recognition)
The navigation template is kept consistent with these two articles, so I think that DLinth is the one that should seek consensus for his version (that contradicts the two list articles) - and not here, but at their talk pages.
CMD, DLinth, do you agree with that: 1. Nav.template is kept consistent with the two list articles. 2. The question about "What are CI/Niue?" should be discussed there and not here. ? Japinderum (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Japinderum, rather than what we disagree on (most everything above, it would seem to an outside reader), perhaps below could be what we agree on (which is I think more than one might think??):
On this template and various WP country "lists", CI/Niue....
1) are not dependencies and shouldn't be listed under "dependencies", and also....
2) should not appear with no differentiation listed in with the ~195 states (the top part of List of Sovereign States
That leaves the option suggested by CMD in the last words of his last note above. So let me try that now, and I'll recommend WP:BRD to any editor, and looking at discussion (there's certainly been a lot of it) at the archive at List of Sovereign States or anywhere else.DLinth (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DLinth, I agree with 1), but not with 2) - there is no reason to differentiate CI/Niue from Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau, Monaco, Vatican City, etc. - I'm not sure what this "top differentiation" is, but I know only two types of sovereign states - those, who are widely recognized by the international community and those who are only with limited recognition. I appreciate your attempt to find another solution, but I see the following flaws in your edit: the new category you add ("associated states") isn't filled correctly (Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands are missing), adding such category makes the Oceania template inconsistent with the other templates and with the Wikipedia list articles - the changes to the titles are strange - "Fully independent sovereign states" vs. "Politically Independent Entities" - what means "politically independent entities" - some kind of "not fully sovereign", "not fully independent" or "not a state" (all those along with the "limited recognition" are proven wrong by the sources and by the Wikipedia list articles)?
I'll revert those changes to the version consistent with the two list articles. Please, if you think that CI/Niue are misplaced, use the talk pages at the list articles - whatever discussions had taken place there in the past the final conclusion/current situation is that those are "sovereign states" and not with "limited recognition". Any arguments for the opposite should be placed at the list articles talk pages. Of course, if you have idea for different arrangements I'll be happy to hear it. Japinderum (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your unwillingness to go with a clear compromise (above) (an intermediate category for the unique CI/Niue situation) is disappointing.
I'll repeat for you (again) at the List of Sovereign States discussion and below why pretty much every authoritative source out there from the UN to every atlas publisher to sources/text in dozens of WP articles disagree with your errant conclusion above that "there is no reason to differentiate CI/Niue from Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau, Monaco,..." Really? For starters, all those have declared independence, are all full UN members, all are recognized as fully independent states by 180+ other states (not one or three like CI/Niue)...CI-Niue are non of the above and they have New Zealand citizenship.
Why are you so intent in sticking CI/Niue into the "top" list of fully-independent states here, when every other WP article that I've found including Niue, Cook Islands, List of Sovereign States, and dozens of others do not do that and/or point out their limited sovereignty/independence? That would be inconsistent within WP....Why not try to build a consensus on those pages if you want to change it?
I just checked every other continental template page, and the only states in the top part are from those ~195 with fully independent status in the eyes of the world community....not Niue and CI....only those states from the top part of the List of Sovereign States, not the bottom "other states" part with CI, Niue, Abhazia, N. Cyprus, etc.
The long archived discussion at List of Sovereign States concluded (6 to 5 vote....shaky at that....to include CI and Niue, but in the "other states" part at the bottom. Lots of WP lists have "bottom parts" where you find an "almost" or "under consideration" list....someone who "almost" made the Hall of Fame list, or was an acting ambassador, not ambassador. Being in the "almost" list at the bottom does not provide "undifferentiated" membership to the top list.
You wrote to an editor: "OK, but I think DLinth will refrain from changing it if three editors (Spesh531, me and you) revert his change." Really? It's up to three editors. Actually, no, CI/Niue will not be listed among the ~195 "top list" of states recognized by the international community until the UN and/or 100+ states and/or other international authorities recognize them, presumably needing CI/Niue to actually declare independence themselves first, and break with NZ citizenship. That's when CI/Niue will become listed on the ~195-member "top list", not when a few editors "decide."
Based on WP sites and world sources from the World Factbook to National Geographic Society to atlas makers all over the world to the UN, WP editors are going to keep reverting you every time you put CI or Niue in an undifferentiated fashion (no italics, no asterisk) in the "top part" where the ~195 generally recognized states are found. That is, until some of the items in the above paragraph change.DLinth (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Niue and CI are special cases, however they are a special case under tha main category of sovereign states. (maxval (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Special case, yes, thus my suggestion for a unique 3rd category, though I and some other editors are quite happy to maintain the 3 year + status quo on this template with CI and Niue under Dependencies and other territories (Classic dependencies? no....other?...yes.
CI and Niue in the "Main Category" of sovereign states? Actually, no. Go look at that page. They are not among the 194 in the main category. They are in the dozen or so in the "other category" None of that dozen appears in the "top tier" in any continental template, and neither should Niue and CI.
Niue and CI are clearly differentiated from Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau (the list suggested above) in Oceania, in List of Sovereign States, in dozens of WP country lists (demographics, size), etc......and yet some think not on the Oceania template? Because....why, exactly? I've not seen a valid reason.
Bottom line: As long as Niue and CI are not in the "top tier" list in undifferentiated fashion (no italics, no asterisks, no "(NZ)") virtually everywhere else in WP (not to mention virtually every atlas from London to Australia, the UN list of memeber states, virtually every list of fully independent "top tier" states (such as found on the US Dept. of State's list of states they recognize) then the status quo in the Oceania template and those many other WP pages remains. This is the exact same way that, on every WP page and template I've seen for Europe, Africa, Asia, Americas, that the rest of the dozen or so "other states" with CI and Niue are treated.
BTW, it was suggested to move this discussion to the discussion page for List of Sovereign StatesDLinth (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special case, yes, thus my suggestion for a unique 3rd category to Oceania's template, though I and some other editors are quite happy to maintain the 3 year + status quo on this template with CI and Niue under Dependencies and other territories (Classic dependencies? no...."other"?...yes.)
CI and Niue in the "Main Category" of sovereign states? Actually, no. They are not among the 194 in the main category. They are in the dozen or so in the "other category." None of that dozen appears in the "top tier" in any continental template or page or list of countries without an asterisk or qualifier, and neither should Niue and CI. (That is, Abhazia, N. Cyprus, S. Ossetia....they all do not appear in the top tier of Europe or Asia or Africa lists, nor should they, nor should Niue and CI.
All of these dozen including CI and Niue are recognized as fully independent states by none or just one or three or four states, not by the 150+ (and full UN membership) enjoyed by every state in the "Main Category" here.
Niue and CI are not in the "Main Category" either at Oceania or in dozens of WP country lists (demographics, size, population), etc. unless they have an asterisk, explained italics, a "(NZ)", or some other qualifier......and yet one editor keeps moving them to the top, main category on the Oceania template? Because....why, exactly? I've not seen a valid reason.
Bottom line: That editor says above that there is "no reason to differentiate between Niue and CI and Nauru, Tuvalu, Palau." Relly? Every other relevant WP page and the UN disagrees.
In addition, source-wise, Niue and CI are not in the "top tier" list in undifferentiated fashion (no italics, no asterisks, no "(NZ)") in every atlas and geography and political reference books I've seen from London to Australia to Tokyo, they are they are not in the UN list of memeber states, they are not in every list I've seen of fully independent "top tier" states (such as found on the US Dept. of State's list of states they recognize.)
Until we see multiple sources to the contrary, or, heaven forbid, CI or Niue actually declare independence (they haven't) or sheds their New Zealand citizenship status (they haven't), then the status quo or something similar in the Oceania template and here and those many other WP pages remains. In this case, we edit when "something happens" in the real world politic to change their status, not just because we have strong opinions as editors.DLinth (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When we voted about CI and Niue, I was thinking a lot about this issue. CI and Niue are indeed a special category. But I decided then to vote for inclusion of them as sovereign states. My main criterion was that they are recognized by the UN as non-member states. There are only 3 entities recognized by the UN as non-member countries: CI, Niue and the Vatican. And I think that if we include the Vatican as sovereign country, then there is no reason not to include CI and Niue. Yes, they have no own citizenship, but in past it happenned to other countries too, even to member countries of the UN. (maxval (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japinderum (talkcontribs) Reply[reply]
Actually, CI and Niue, along with the Palestine Authority and Taiwan, are lower tier UN non-member states or members of committees or non-recognized (Taiwan), with the Holy See (Vatican City) the next level above that (observer status), and then 193 states (the top of our list here + Vatican) as full member states. See United Nations General Assembly observers DLinth (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"lower tier UN non-member states or members of committees or non-recognized" - what's this? There's no such thing as "tiers of UN non-member states" and I don't get "members of committees or non-recognized"... Do you have any source formally describing such "tiers"? The observers article you link to shows the "tiers of UNGA observers": 1. non-member states, 2. PLO, 3. regional organization allowed to speak on behalf of their member states, 4. intergovernmental organizations, 5. other entities. And these "tiers" are not ranked by the "independence, sovereignty, statehood" of the observers, but by the rights the UNGA members decided to give to each observer (rights such as "speak at the UNGA without intermediary member", "submit documents at the UNGA", etc. - not rights such as "independent foreign policy in general" - this isn't something that the UN and the UNGA are regulating). Japinderum (talk) 06:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In reply to 16:37, 14 May 2012 - DLinth. I explained what's wrong with your proposal (please, don't put it again unless agreed here. If you still want to put the inconsistent version, that's maybe OK - temporary - according to the editing rules, but pushing for non-agreed changes isn't.) - it's unclear what's the difference between "fully independent" and "politically independent" - is there something dependent in the "not fully, but only politically independent"? why "entities" instead of "sovereign states" (this is inconsistent with List of sovereign states)? why the "associated states" group doesn't include all of these?
I repeat - this isn't the place to discuss "what are CI/Niue?" - despite of this I have already shown you many sources showing that those are fully independent sovereign states and that authoritative lists (MFAs, UN and other diplomatic sources - unlike journalists, mass market atlases and other unofficial or non-professional sources) don't make any distinction between them and the rest of the states. That's the reason why those are included in the List of sovereign states. "Declared independence" - many states haven't declared independence - Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand, Cook Islands, Niue, Iran, Japan, etc. "UN membership" - this is unrelated to statehood or independence: members of the UN who become (not all of them "declared") independent after UN membership (Belarus, Ukraine, Philippines, New Zealand, India), fully independent sovereign states that remain outside the UN for decades (Cook Islands, Niue, Vatican City; Switzerland until 2002; Tuvalu until 2000; Kiribati, Nauru, Tonga until 1999; Andorra, Monaco until 1993; San Marino until 1992; Marshall Islands, Micronesia until 1991; Liechtenstein until 1990; etc.) "Citizenship" - NZ gives CI and Niue citizens rights of NZ citizens - just as it gives development funds, administrative assistance, etc. On the other hand NZ citizens do not have the rights of Cook Islanders or Niueans. Having separate international passport type isn't a requirement for statehood, independence or sovereignty. I have even given you UN sources explaining the UN position on that one - it's clearly stated that there are states outside of the UN and CI and Niue are also explicitly shown to be such states that aren't members of the UN organization. But I have explained that multiple times already - you don't respond, but instead repeat the mantras (Declared independence, UN membership, etc.) again.
other Wikipedia articles show CI/Niue "limited sovereignty/independence" - what do you mean by that? Their sovereignty, independence or recognition aren't limited - what's limited in their sovereignty/independence? which articles claim such thing? List of sovereign states, Cook Islands, Niue don't.
Why are you so intent in sticking CI/Niue into the "top" list of fully-independent states here - there are no "fully independent states" and "not fully independent states" groups - the groups are 1."Sovereign states", 2."[Sovereign] states with limited recognition", 3."Dependencies and other territories [different from sovereign states]". I insist on consistency - everything listed at List of sovereign states goes in group1 unless it's listed at List of states with limited recognition going in group2. - do you disagree with this simple principle or not? I asked this several times and don't get a reply from you!
"fully independent status in the eyes of the world community." - I gave you dozens of lists showing that the international community makes no distinction between CI, Niue and the rest of the "~195 states" (as you call them - why do you put ~ and how do you define who gets in and who doesn't?)
WP lists have "bottom parts" where you find an "almost" or "under consideration" list - there is no such thing in the List of sovereign states. The inclusion criteria are pretty clear. I asked you previously to explain what is the "bottom/other/almost"-ness of CI and Niue. If you think that they are not fully independent sovereign states, then they should 'not be included in the List of sovereign states - but this isn't the place to discuss that.
"top part of the List of Sovereign States, not the bottom "other states" - what are these "parts", "top", "bottom"? The List of sovereign states article doesn't have any sections, it has only one single section - a "List of states". Abhazia, N. Cyprus and similar states that you mention are the states with limited recognition - those that don't exist according to the position of most governments in the international community. But they exist in practice and according to the positions of a few of the governments in the international community. Those are not some kind of "not fully independent states". The List of sovereign states includes only fully independent sovereign states. I said that already - and didn't get a response/acknowledgement from you.
"The long archived discussion at List of Sovereign States" - you seem to disagree with the consensus reached after that discussion - but this comes to the question "what are CI/Niue?" - and this isn't the place to discuss that.
UN disagrees - do you have any source showing that according to the UN the CI and Niue are not fully independent sovereign states? [6] and page10 and "...the question of the status, as a State, of the Cook Islands, had been duly decided in the affirmative..." state the opposite.
Really? It's up to three editors. - of course not - what I wrote is that obviously you continue to prevent me and Spesh from making this nav.template consistent with the list articles - and I said that if other editors chime in this should be convincing enough for you to pursue your change request at the appropriate talk page(s) and not do a proxy-discussion here.
again your opinion about limited recognition and declaration of independence - I explained what's wrong with it above - and also why this isn't the place to discuss that.
the "dozens of WP articles" that you mention are just like this nav.template - the place of CI and Niue in these articles is simply not yet updated to be consistent with the changes to the List of sovereign states. I hope you don't expect on each of "Sports in Oceania", "Education on Oceania", "Weather in Oceania", "Animals in Oceania", etc. to be opened the same discussion about "what are CI/Niue?" - this is decided at List of sovereign states and then the other articles are gradually made consistent with it.
Recap - discussion about "what are CI/Niue?" takes place at List of sovereign states - and any other Wikipedia article is changed accordingly. Not the other way around.
To move this discussion to List of sovereign states. No. This discussion is about:
"... the groups [in the nav.template] are 1."Sovereign states", 2."[Sovereign] states with limited recognition", 3."Dependencies and other territories [different from sovereign states]". I insist on consistency - everything listed at List of sovereign states goes in group1 unless it's listed at List of states with limited recognition going in group2. - do you disagree with this simple principle or not? I asked this several times and don't get a reply from you!"
If you reply to that (editorial question) - without going into unrelated issues (on subject/content) like "what are CI/Niue?" - then we can finish quickly. Of course you're free to open a separate "what are CI/Niue?" discussion at Talk:List of sovereign states. Japinderum (talk) 09:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Finishing quickly"...that's the goal? "You (Japinderum) insist on..." this, you "insist on" that?? "You grant me the "freedom" ("I'm free") to have a discussion only where you say?" Wow. Welcome to WP, Japinderum. Might I recommend WP:LOP.
I'm not going to repeat or rewrite the above discussion; it's clear to most of us that CI and Niue will not move to the list of ~195 fully independent, fully sovereign states until something happens other than your erroneous, un-sourced conclusions above.
That "something" will have to be some combination of what is totally lacking now: UN full membership recognition, and/or listings by established sources/atlases/books in the independent list (not where they virtually ALL have them now (non-independent)...I notice you haven't offered a single source of that type....and/or CI and Niue actually declaring independence or voting for it (not against it as they did), and/or removing their NZ citizenship, and/or perhaps (as with South Sudan, not yet Kosovo or Western Sahara) UN recogntion plus recognition as fully independent states by 100 or 150 other states (as with every other one listed here in the main list), not 1 or 3 as with CI/Niue.....That's a lot of determining factors on this issue where CI/Niue strike out on every one!
For now, I agree with CMD and his recent edit here...With no agreement (not from you,it is quite obvious) on a very reasonable compromise in my recent edit (with CI and Niue in a unique status all to themselves) the Oceania template will have to stay with the (3+ year status quo) (the edit recently made by CMD) with just the two categories, with CI and Niue and those in the "other territories" list at the bottom here (and not elevated to the "top tier" category without an asterisk or explanation)....(BTW, that's consistent with Oceania, Niue, Cook Islands, Associated states, dozens of WP country lists, List of Sovereign States, every template and list of countries for Europe, Asia, Africa....No, CI and Niue are not fully independent, fully UN-recognized, "main list" at List of Sovereign States because you believe them to be....That will remain up to the venerable sources World Factbook, Times Atlas (UK), National Geographic Society, the ~195 states of the international community, the UN, and CI and Niue themselves, and not WP editors. DLinth (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DLinth, I have already given you links and explanation showing that your arguments above are wrong. You didn't reply to any of those. What's more important is that other Wikipedia editors have already discussed "what are CI/Niue?" at the appropriate place (at Talk:List of sovereign states) and the decision is to include them in that list. If you disagrees with that - then you should challenge their decision there, not here. This is simply a navigation template - and your position right now is to keep it inconsistent with the List of sovereign states.
On the proposal to add one more group - I explained what problems I see in its initial version. Adding more groups isn't a decision to be taken lightly. I'm not against discussing that or similar proposals, but we have to first solve our bigger disagreement - "what is the place to debate independence, sovereignty, statehood, recognition" (and some related issues). Otherwise any discussion will be like speaking in different languages.
To make it clear again - I move CI/Niue from "dependencies and other territories" into "sovereign states" not because CI/Niue are fully independent sovereign states, but I move the because they are included in the List of sovereign states.
To revert that move you don't need any UN, atlas, diplomatic or another source - you need to first get them removed from the List of sovereign states or to get them included in the List of states with limited recognition (your UN, atlases and sources should be directed at those talk pages, not here). Please, answer about that (e.g. without mentioning any "independence", "sources", "recognition" and similar unrelated topics). Japinderum (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to include in the "Sovereign states" group[edit]

Above there is an unproductive debate focusing on particular change. There are two positions:

  1. Include everything included in the List of sovereign states and not included in the List of states with limited recognition. Arguments about who has full independence, statehood, sovereignty, recognition are irrelevant here and should be directed instead at the relevant talk pages. This preserves the consistency of Wikipedia and keeps the debates at the appropriate places.
  2. Decision what to include should be taken after full debate of all arguments about the independence, sovereignty, statehood and recognition of each entity. Thus, the navigation template can have a list of sovereign states that is inconsistent with the List of sovereign states. Editors should waste their time debating the same topic (who's a sovereign state) on every article that lists states instead of centralizing the debate at a single place.

Currently DLinth agrees with option2 and I agree with option1. I can't get him to answer the question why he disagrees with option1 (instead of answering he starts bringing arguments about independence, sovereignty, statehood, recognition - thus implying that he supports option2). So, everybody else, please help us to choose option1 or option2. Japinderum (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By separating states with limited recognition we're already inconsistent with the main list. Given that, I'd say this is a quite obvious false dichotomy. CMD (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're consistent with the two lists together. Do you see something wrong with separating the List of states with limited recognition in a second group?
After we clarify to everybody whether we go with option1 or option2, then depending on the outcome and resulting edits (if any) we can discuss either "should we split the sovereign states group in three parts and if yes, what should be the third one?" (if we go with option1) or "are CI/Niue sovereign states or sovereign states with limited recognition or something else?" (if we go with option2) Japinderum (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How are we consistent with the two lists together? I don't see China in a limited recognition section anywhere. If you're saying that we have to pick one of two options in order to proceed further in discussion, I don't think discussion will get very far. CMD (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We both know why China is placed where it is, but of course, if you wish, we can discuss "how is made the split between groups of sovereign states and sovereign states with limited recognition?". The problem with DLinth is that he tries re-open the discussion about "are CI/Niue sovereign states?" here instead where it belongs - he prevents edits that make the nav.template consistent with the current status of the List of sovereign states and List of states with limited recognition. As explained at the RFC this is WP:Forum shopping.
I don't object discussing further changes to nav.templates groups, but this is entirely separate issue - and there is no point in discussing that unless we go with option1. If we go with option2 (against the WP:Forum shopping rule) there's no point discussing nav.template group changes, since I'm sure we won't reach any conclusion over CI/Niue sovereignty (debates over the same issue at List of sovereign states took years to get a result) - there wouldn't be a need to change nav.templates groups if CI/Niue weren't sovereign states. Japinderum (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DLinth isn't reopening that discussion, and what he's doing is not forum shopping. Forum shopping is when you open discussions on multiple pages about what is basically the same topic. DLinth hasn't done that. As for this nav template, it's not exactly consistent. It can't be; there's no extents, or anything like that. It's a boilerplate. CMD (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't you see the pages after pages of DLinth bringing back arguments about whether CI/Niue are sovereign states or not? Isn't this the same topic already discussed at length at List of sovereign states? Wasn't this already answered there? Should we now repeat it again here? And at each other article listing states?
About the nav.template - the problem there is that it has sovereign states (according to the List of sovereign states) placed not in any of the two sovereign states groups (with or without limited recognition), but in some different group that's not about sovereign states. That's wrong and inconsistent. Do you agree? Japinderum (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see pages after pages of extremely long posts by both of you. There's no consensus that what happened in that list goes in all the others. This was seen after Spesh made their runs. I don't see Somaliland on every wikipedia list, so there's no point complaining about consistency.
I don't agree, and that should be clear by now. They're currently in a catch-all category, which could be about anything. DLinth has proposed compromises above, creating a new group. If we already have "two sovereign states groups", I don't see any reason not to have a third. Why not discuss that instead of posting multiple discussions on multiple pages in multiple sections? CMD (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you mean "There's no consensus that what happened in that list goes in all the others." - it's quite the contrary - do you expect to re-open the same discussion about whether CI/Niue are sovereign states or not at every article again and again? And to have the various articles inconsistent with each other? You're surely joking. If somebody disagrees with the conclusion currently reached at List of sovereign states he should challenge that there, not everywhere else.
What about Somaliland? Does anybody object listing it along sovereign states or along sovereign states with limited recognition? If somebody does - you should point him to the list article talk pages.
"They're currently in a catch-all category, which could be about anything." - no, they are in a category that's about territories other than sovereign states. And that contradicts the List of sovereign states.
DLinth "compromise" edit added an additional ill-defined group called "Politically independent entities", not states (DLinth doesn't accept the conclusion reached at List of sovereign states and contradicts it by continuing to insist that CI/Niue are not fully independent sovereign states), and that proposal has various other problems I pointed to DLinth, but he didn't replied. I don't object discussing that - if somebody cares to open a section describing what the suggestion is and why we should do it. I don't see how we can proceed to that discussion without first accepting the List of sovereign states (e.g. option1). If somebody disagrees with the List of sovereign states it's inescapable that he will drive the discussion again into "are CI/Niue fully independent sovereign states or not?" ... there's no point in discussing what the third sovereign states group should be where CI/Niue can be placed, if one of the participants doesn't accept that they are sovereign states at all. Japinderum (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can't demand that we start discussion from a predefined point of your choosing. And I'm not joking, Talk:List of sovereign states/Archive 10#Ripples of this article. CMD (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CMD, the discussion you point me to shows the following: it's deals extensively with Niue - from the time when it wasn't yet included in the List of sovereign states; it's between editors who don't agree that CI/Niue are "fully independent sovereign states" (e.g. they want CI/Niue to be presented somehow differently from the sovereign states) - and some of them even repeat the arguments about that (off topic?). Of course, such editors would be happy for all articles to remain inconsistent with the List of sovereign states (where their arguments against CI/Niue sovereignty were discussed and eventually dismissed), but that's not how Wikipedia works.
I don't demand where we start a discussion. I say that there is no point in discussing "special sovereign states group title" for CI/Niue if you don't agree that they are "fully independent sovereign states" in the first place. So, let's clarify that - do you agree with that (List of sovereign states) or not? Japinderum (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was persuaded by the long discussion, if you remember. CMD (talk) 14:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you agree that CI/Niue are "fully independent sovereign states" and you agree that they are not "with limited recognition" (if I remember you reverted edits which placed them in that group). In such case I don't understand why you insist on keeping them in the group "dependencies and other territories [different from sovereign states]" in contradiction of the two list articles (1, 2).
I don't object adding some appropriately worded footnote or to discuss some further changes to the nav.templates, but the current inconsistency is much more worrying. But I can't see how to do either of those if some of us continue to act as if CI/Niue aren't sovereign states (and aren't included in the list). Japinderum (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that on the balance they should be on the list of sovereign states. You keep telling everyone else that other states like Monaco aren't fully sovereign and independent, so why you're now trying to impress a quoted statement on this one case is beyond me. I've also noted they aren't states with limited recognition, despite the wording of our current extents in List of sovereign states implying they are. If you don't want inconsistency, go remove notes of partial recognition from the extents there. As it stands, they support DLinth's plan of placing them in a states with limited recognition section. No-ones pretending they aren't on the list (which I've said before). If you continue to treat that as the basis of dispute, then that's why nothing is happening. CMD (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't said that Monaco isn't fully sovereign and independent - I said that the Cook Islands are not less sovereign and independent than Monaco, e.g. both are fully sovereign and independent despite the heavy outside influence, that's bigger in the case of Monaco.
Extents in List of sovereign states have different issues and I agree that one of these issues is inconsistency between these extents and List of states with limited recognition - and since you suggests that this should be rectified I'll propose a change at the talk page there. This is a separate issue from the inconsistency of the nav.template with the two list articles and also this doesn't support DLinth preventing the nav.template being changed into consistency with both list articles. CI/Niue are listed here and not there, so they should be in nav.template group "sovereign states" and not "limited recognition".
You say that you agree with that, but your comment implies that regardless you kind of support DLinth, despite that he is misled by an inconsistent extent into thinking that CI/Niue are sovereign states, but only with limited recognition (which they aren't) and at the same time the useless/misleading non-alphabetic ordering makes him think that CI/Niue are "not fully" independent and sovereign - which contradicts his other misunderstanding (about recognition) - e.g. because of the ignorance in mass market sources (that omit CI/Niue) DLinth actively searches for "something wrong" in them and he's willing to take anything - whether "independent and sovereign, but with limited recognition" or "not fully independent and sovereign" - from his comments it seems that he agrees with both and doesn't care about the fact that those are mutually exclusive - so long as that places CI/Niue as "other", "bottom", "limited", "not fully" (e.g. to partially confirm the common misconception about "something wrong" stemming from the ignorant omission in non-professional or unofficial sources).
So, since you agree that CI/Niue are fully independent sovereign states that are not with limited recognition (according to the current consensus at the relevant Wikipedia articles - 1, 2), would you confirm that to DLinth - so that he stops disregarding my explanation merely as "Japinderum's opinion"? Japinderum (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the place to bring your campaign to eliminate the division in the sovereign state list. What I agree with is that there are enough sources noting the CI/Niue as a sovereign state to justify their inclusion on that article. My personal opinion is quite irrelevant, as is yours. As for "Japinderum's opinion"; what you've been discussing is your opinion. You leave long spiels of text debating minor points, with references to other articles only making up part of your argument. I can hardly fault DLinth for using a simple and easy descriptor. CMD (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand your position. I think you do:
  1. agree with me that CI/Niue are fully independent sovereign states that are not with limited recognition (according to the current consensus at the relevant Wikipedia articles - 1, 2).
  2. agree with me to place them accordingly here - in the "sovereign states" group.
  3. agree with DLinth that there is a need to discuss a proposal for a footnote or new sovereign states subgroup.
Correct? Japinderum (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I don't see this in the black and white terms you do. Feel free however to discuss a new subgroup with DLinth. CMD (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DLinth so far hasn't even explained what he proposes and why - he only made a change, that I reverted (and explained what's wrong with it - he didn't addressed my comment). If he wants to propose something, fine. But we all need to know where we start from - otherwise there's no way to discuss.
So, if you don't see it in the terms I see it, then how do you see it? Which of the points above do you agree and which do you disagree with? Japinderum (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've said everything already. I think that their inclusion in the sovereign states article can be justified. I don't think that that list is the definitive guide, although it probably roughly should be. I agree they're not states with limited recognition, but don't agree that automatically puts them in the current top list. Also, we have our starting point, it's the current template. CMD (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, you say we should "roughly" follow the lists (1, 2), but not automatically. In the current template/starting point there are the following options:
  1. group1 "sovereign states"
  2. group2 "[sovereign] states with limited recognition" - you say CI/Niue don't belong here
  3. group3 "dependencies and other territories [different from sovereign states]" - CI/Niue don't belong here because of the long Wikipedia discussion, where it was decided that CI/Niue are sovereign states - and adhering to that decision is the reason for this debate
  4. group4 - some newly defined group of sovereign states
  5. group1 with some footnote
I suggest group1 as this is in full compliance with the topic-defining Wikipedia articles (1, 2). Do you agree or you have suggestion for options 4 or 5? Japinderum (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The long wikipedia discussion didn't determine they were sovereign states. Wikipedia doesn't determine anything. What we determined was that there was enough weight in the sources to justify inclusion, although we even had to argue over the extent first. I initially didn't have a very strong opinion, but now I'm happy for 3 or 4. CMD (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia discussions determine what's written inside Wikipedia. It was decided that it isn't 2 and 3. So, whether you're or I'm happy with 3 is irrelevant unless somebody reopens that long discussion (to overrule the decision taken). Unless you or somebody else makes a specific proposal for 4 or 5, then that leaves only 1. Japinderum (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. The discussion didn't decide any of those numbers. It in fact dealt with a completely different wikipedia space. CMD (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The wikipedia space is irrelevant - the discussion decided that CI/Niue are included in the List of sovereign states and that they aren't included in the List of states with limited recognition. Forcing editors to repeat the same long discussion on another article (here) is forum shopping and wasting of editors time.
So, unless you or somebody else makes a specific proposal for 4 or 5, then that leaves only 1. Japinderum (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, the topic templates aren't set up following 1 (China isn't in the Asian list of limited recognition states, Cyprus isn't in Europe's), so I suppose as you assert that as the only thing left, that leaves just the status quo. CMD (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
China and Cyprus places should be discussed at their templates. CI/Niue are not in the List of states with limited recognition, so that's irrelevant. CI/Niue are in the List of sovereign states (following a long discussion), so the status quo - which contradicts that - can not remain. Japinderum (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not irrelevant, as it's in your supported option. You're the only person here unhappy with the greyness, just as you're the only person still trying to change the sovereign states lists. As Taivo noted, your efforts would be better directed elsewhere. CMD (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Limited recognition is irrelevant here, because none of the Oceania template states are in that list. What grayness I'm unhappy with? I don't want to add/remove states to/from the sovereign states list. What I want is for Wikipedia articles to be consistent with each other. Other editors have gone trough long discussion and decided to add CI/Niue to the sovereign states list, so if you or DLinth are unhappy with that decision - you should go there and propose a change. Obstructing edits that make this article consistent with the long discussion decision is forum shopping. Japinderum (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cook Islands[edit]

I noticed on the Politics of Oceania box that the link to Politics of The Cook Islands was broken. I tried to fix it myself but couldn't. Sapient Homo (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link? Couldn't find broken link, but maybe I looked in a different template. Japinderum (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Must be changed.[edit]

Most of these nations probably do have pages on football. For instance, Football in Palau, which clearly exists. Not all the links need to be 'Football (soccer) in......'. This needs un-americanising.

KHarber- GBR 12:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHarber (talkcontribs)

Create redirects as needed.-gadfium 21:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Football in New Zealand is currently a disambiguation page. There are several articles such as Association football in American Samoa which use the template {{Oceania in topic|Football in}}. Is there a way to disambiguate the New Zealand link to Association football in New Zealand in these cases? Nick Number (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Change the template to {{Oceania in topic|Soccer in}}/{{Oceania in topic|Association football in}}. CMD (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) In November, Frietjes changed {{Europe topic}} so the links for each country can be individually specified. AFAIK, such changes haven't been made to the other "Continent topic" templates yet. SiBr4 ("CyberFour") (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would suggest changing all instances of the template to {{Oceania in topic|Association football in}}, and then either moving any articles titled "Football in Foonation" to "Association football in Foonation", or redirecting "Association football in Foonation" to "Football in Foonation" (presuming, that is, that the "Football in Foonation" articles are in fact about association football; if not, then there's no point in having a template that lists, e.g., some nations having soccer, and some nations having American football or rugby, or whatever else uses the name. bd2412 T 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Association football in X and Soccer in X should exist for all countries as redirects at any rate. Create them if you find one that isn't. CMD (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, and fixed. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hawaii is not a (dependent) territory but a federated state. I see that moving it was discussed in 2011 but this was not carried out. Is there a problem with moving it under sovereign states as part of the United States? — Is this thing working? (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sovereign states is at the moment only made up of countries centrally located in the Oceania region. Hawaii is an "other territory" at the moment. This is in line with other templates like Template:North America topic, where Guadeloupe is in the dependent territory section. Changing should take into account all templates. CMD (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 30 September 2018[edit]

Add a link to Category:Oceania, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania, and Portal:Oceania at the bottom of the template. See the proposed changes at Template:Oceania topic/sandboxEli355 ( talkcontribs ) 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Galobtter: I saw your comment, links should be added here just to Category:Oceania and Portal:Oceania. (proposed changes at Template:Oceania topic/sandbox) —Eli355 ( talkcontribs ) 19:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eli355, the version in the sandbox and the version at {{Oceania topic}} appear significantly different beyond adding links Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Galobtter: The version in the sandbox just adds the following at the bottom of the template:

Which just contains icons and links. —Eli355 ( talkcontribs ) 14:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing it here, but I noticed opposition to a similar edit in Template_talk:Europe_topic#Template-protected_edit_request_on_30_September_2018, so it looks like this change would be controversial/need discussion to estabilish a consensus. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 February 2019[edit]

replace the word 'Australia' with the following piped link so that the word 'Australia' appears emboldened when the template is viewed on Postcodes in Australia - Australia Cowdy001 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done:
The lack of bold a consequence of the redirect from Postal codes in Australia to Postcodes in Australia. The template is used across a multiple of topics and countries (Demographics of the Cook Islands, Telecommunications in French Polynesia, etc) - there's no way the problem will be fixed by hardcoding kludges into the template.
Your particular problem could be fixed in one of two ways
  • by changing the article's use of
{{Oceania topic|Postal codes in}}
{{Oceania topic|Postcodes in}}
also on Postcodes in New Zealand.
You would however need to create a bunch of redirects in the other direction for the countries which use "Postal codes in" rather than "Postcodes in" - e.g. Postal codes in American Samoa would need a redirect from Postcodes in American Samoa.
  • by swapping article & redirects for Aus & NZ to comply with the other nations of Oceania. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it does not. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 18 February 2020[edit]

Solomon Islands link is broken. Vehicle registration plates of the Solomon Islands instead of "Vehicle registration plates of Solomon Islands" Audi1merc2 (talk) 15:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The usual way to fix this is to use a redirect, which I have now done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 September 2020[edit]

Add West Papua to Dependencies and other territories section, as it is a territory in Melanesia, a part of Oceania, and is currently administered as the Papua and West Papua provinces of Indonesia. Grnrchst (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. This is at one level a very sensible request, however, at another level it is very complex. It is clear that the island of New Guinea is part of Oceania, so the parts of that island should be included in this template. However, "West Papua" is the name of one of the Indonesian provinces in the Western half of the island (the other being Papua province). Western New Guinea, as far as I know, has status neither as dependency nor territory, the term is simply geographic, which would make it a different category to all the others in that row. It would possibly make more sense to add the two provinces, however, the first thing should be developing a consensus on how the western part of New Guinea should be included. Goldsztajn (talk) 11:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

several red-linked entries have articles[edit]

Hi, e.g. Cook Islands, Niue - links are to "List of islands of Cook Islands", etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts707 (talkcontribs) 08:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a wrapper template, meant to generate specific links for each entry. List of islands of Cook Islands does not currently exist as an article. CMD (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see. I can create redirects for such for consistency. Thanks and sorry I didn't sign my first post, I wasn't quite done with it. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please consider not creating redirects where the target article isn't in the same scope. WP:Red links are useful in that they indicate a potential article creation possibility. CMD (talk) 07:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cuisines of Oceania[edit]

Just a heads up, for whatever reason, the cuisine version of the template is rending the links for the country's cuisines as "Cuisines of [COUNTRY]" instead of "[DENOMYN] cuisines" (which is what most country's cuisines are titled) like the other continents' templates. (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi IP, if you want a denomyn name you need to use Template:Oceanian topic. CMD (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 11 December 2021[edit]

Could someone remove Hawaii from this template? It's one of the 50 states, so it's not a country. (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is lists more than just countries. CMD (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent FSM National Police edit[edit]

This edit today by @Skjoldbro: now causes all versions of the template to display a link to FSM National Police rather then the relevant Federated States of Micronesia topic. See the usage at Politics of Guam as an example. I don't have the access rights to revert or correct the edit, can somebody with the necessary rights please do so? Calistemon (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Skjoldbro's edit needs reverting soonish. CMD (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done-gadfium 04:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]