Template talk:Countries of Europe

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

News entry[edit]

Kosovo must not be on this list, as it is disputed territory. Add other disputed territories, or add none. You cannot add just one, without any agreement or consensus. And it you add all, we must mention that template contains disputed territories also. --Anastan (talk) 19:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know another state in Europe in a similar situation. Or you will tell me. But the categorizing system of Wikicommons isn't a place to debate if something is a full state or almost nearly a state or whatever. Where does the Category:Pristina belong to? Category:Municipalities in Kosovo, Category:Cities in Kosovo, Category:Capitals in Europe. This is a fact and not debated. The template must cover all territories in Europe. Pristina isn't nowhere, it's in Europe. So please keep your political fight somewhere else and let us quietly categorize the full territory of Europe. Please. And don't forget: This template is called countries of Europe, not states. Finally, membership in the UN doesn't define a state. Switzerland hasn't been a member of UN for decades. And nobody said it wasn't a state. Oh yes, and the Vatican still isn't an UN member!-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Gürbetaler, there are plenty of states with limited recognition in Europe (Switzerland and the Vatican are not the case), see en:List of states with limited recognition. Those states, as well as Kosovo, have categories on Commons: Category:Abkhazia, Category:Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Category:Northern Cyprus, Category:South Ossetia, Category:Transnistria, Category:Donetsk People's Republic and Category:Lugansk People's Republic.
However, it would be better to create a separate template for such states with limited recognition, rather than mess them all up with each other.--Russian Rocky (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
To avoid disputes what is a country and what is not, there need to be a certain criteria. For example, how many other countries have recognized this one. If ten or more it is a country, if less it is not (for example). Or recognition by some international organization such as UN, EU or Council of Europe. Let us set these criteria. --Tohaomg (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with all these proposals. The aim of the template is to cover Europe fully. I'm not interested in political debates. If an area is working on its own in certain fields, it must be included, otherwise I don't get around Europe with the template, which I should. We should rather distinguish between (political) states and (de facto) countries. If you oppose to the word "country", which I understand in a geographical, not political sense, you may propose another term, better suited for geographical items. For an example of a geographical item, where the template is used, see Category:Rail transport in Kosovo.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I proclaim my house an independent country and demand it to be included in this template. My house is a part of Europe and it have to be there. My house is not nowhere, it is in Europe. It is a geographical entry, not political. And Sealand have to be there too, Europe have to be covered fully. --Tohaomg (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Tohaomg, even Europe is not unanimous in the Kosovo question, 5 EU countries (see Positions taken by intergovernmental organisations) still resisting Europe burocrats' will to recognize Kosovo, while UN position is more clear and with no chance to sneak such a resolution. I think the best decision is to inquire experts, rather than to create a True Scotsman rule for countries. Then, those that meet the definition of a country in Europe should be included.
Also, I suggest to add Kazakhstan in the template, because it is a transcontinental country (See List of transcontinental countries and File:Transcontinental nations.svg).--Russian Rocky (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Kazakhstan can be added, but be aware that he is already included in Template:Countries of Asia --Tohaomg (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I see no problem here. In particular, Russia is added in both templates as a transcontinental country per se. I hope you would not suggest to keep such a country in only one of those two templates.--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Tohaomg: I don't think you understood my point. I can't see how your proclamation brings your house to a de-facto independence from the state it is in. Will you have your own fire-brigade, your own provision with water, power etc.? Here is the difference: Even if Kosovo is not recognized as an independent state by a few other states, the railways of Kosovo depend in no way from Serbia. This is why I would like to distinguish between European states and European countries.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
My house perfectly fits your definition of a country, because your definition does not contain a requirement for country to be recognized. It means every man in Europe can proclaim his own country and it will be included in the template. We need to set some requirement to not let pseudocountries in this template. Another thing is that Wikimedia projects are nonpolitical, so we have to be very careful in adding disputed countries. For example adding Kosovo can cause a negative reaction from Serbia, which will harm the reputation of Wikimedia. That is why we have to put only countries which we are sure they really are countries. Imagine that Serbian government said "What the hell? Why does Wikimedia treats Kosovo like a country? We will sue them!". If it happens we need to answer "We treat Kosovo like a country because [reasons]". Now we have nothing to answer. I am not against Kosovo in this template, but only after proofs that it was recognized by a reasonable number of other countries or organizations. --Tohaomg (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
No, your house doesn't fit my definition unless you will prove that the state accepts that you don't pay taxes. Do inhabitants of Kosovo pay Serbian taxes? Does Serbian legislation influence the daily life in Kosovo? This is not a political declaration. It's only writing down the facts as they are in daily life. Or, if I want to know, which mobile phone companies are active in Kosovo, does it (for the daily life) help, if I know what Serbian mobile phone companies exist? So we are strictly factual.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

How many countries?[edit]

Taking Ural river as the limit of Europe, a small part of Kazakhstan is also part of Europe (likewise Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan have large territories in Asia). So Kazakhstan should be added to this country list. On the other hand, I can't see where Armenia would touch Europe. Shouldn't this country be removed from this list?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

When creating this tempate I included member states of the Council of Europe. Armenia is its member, Kazakhstan is not. --Tohaomg (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Slovenia is missing. Stas (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

New translation[edit]

I suggest that the Esperanto translation be added between English and Spanish:

   | en = Countries of Europe
   | eo = Landoj de Eŭropo
   | es = Países de Europa

In order to avoid re-rendering of pages using this template I ask the next user making a change to the template to take care of this change, too.

Thank you, -- Renardo la vulpo (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

This Esperanto translation is now live
note that the template was recently simplified at lot by putting the logic to sort the list and display translated country names (using now {{Label}} for getting them from Wikidata) in a separately utility template. The code is now much shorter (but you'll note that if it takes longer, this is caused by {{Label}} which should be optimized to be much faster, notably for countries that have lot of properties in Wikidata, notably Germany, as the internal code used to read from DAta does not include any filter for the properties we need, they are all retrived, all parsed and indexed, and then a basic lookup attempts to extract one of the properties). The problem is not caused by fallback, it does not affect at all countries with much smaller abount of properties such as Montenegro: the time is directly dependant on other properties).
Something to be done in the Wikdiata library to include filters for the properties we're really interested in and discard everything else that are not translated "names"). However before putting this new code in the tempalte, I used its /sandbox version to test it in various pages or categories and I did not see any effect on resource limits exhausted. But really for Germany (that takes about about half a second, or 1/6th of the total time, this is really a problem, that should be discussed with authors of the Wikidata module).
Beside this, the addition of the label above for Esperanto now also adds all country names in Esperanto, sorted accordingly (but you may need to check the sort order: it is now much simpler than what it was before, only one line containing a list of ISO 3166-1 country codes (XK used for Kosovo), and now all lists in all languages are showing the same set of countries, and they all perform the same detection of pages or categories to link to).
More languages may now be easily added (the template first focused on translating to all official and most regional European languages, but Esperanto was not part of this set). With this change, I added a few other regional European languages as well as Hebrew. Probably Arabic should be added too, and why not now Chinese, Japanese Hindi, Tamil, Thai and so on (I detailed how to do that in the doc page, but you'll need to know how to sort countries in these languages, due to their complex script, but note that now even these languages are showing translated country names, only sorted by default like in English).
verdy_p (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Czech Republic / Cyprus[edit]

Should be Cyprus / Czech Republic.

Reasonably easy change. Not sure if if really needs consensus but, following protocol, I'd like to suggest they are swapped around. S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Isle of Man · Jersey · Kosovo[edit]

Those three should not be on this list. None of those are UN member, two are dependencies, and third one is disputed. We should have sublist for those, and also add other States with limited recognition, and well as other Dependencies. For more info see proper template on EN wiki Template:Sovereign_states_of_Europe --Anastan (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you always come back with the same arguments but no viable solution. It is absolutely correct what you say when you take the Sovereign states template. But once again, here we speak about a geographical template, not a political template. I don't oppose if you want to give the template a different name than "country". But what else would be better? If you want to send a letter to Pristina you wouldn't send it to Serbia, would you? And if you wanted to phone somebody in Pristina, you wouldn't reach him or her using a Serbian calling code.
Concerning the Crown dependencies Bailiwick of Jersey and Guernesey and Isle of Man, now, that's a story of its own. Whatever it is or isn't, if you are there, you are not in the EU, and this has nothing to do with the Brexit! And they are NOT part of the United Kingdom. They are not sovereign states, but they are countries.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Disagree on Kosovo, as it is recognized by most countries of Europe, but agree on Man and Jersey - I personally do not like the idea of them being present in this list, as they are not countries. Geographical entries? This template is not called Geographical entries of Europe, besides geographical entry has a broad meaning, it can be anything: city, region, river, anything. Let's add anything that is a geographical entry to this list, will be fun to see what it will look like. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Now we are happily back to the question what is a country? Is this a political entity or is it a geographical entity? Is a sovereign state a country? And if yes, is a country necessarily a sovereign state? Are the French départements d'outre mer part of the country France or are they part of the French state?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I propose to include only full Council of Europe members and Belarus to avoid a demagogy what is a country and what is not. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
So you define country as a political category and not a geographic one. I still wait for a proposition how to define a geographical area, if it is not a country in the political sense. Thank you.-- Gürbetaler (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Who said this is geographical template? No, its not. Template NAME is Countries of Europe, not geographical regions of Europe. So, please stop talking about geography, that is irrelevant. So, UN members countries + separately limited recognition states are thing to be here, and nothing else. They will cover everything here, as we do not have Terra nullius in Europe. Please, lets stop fake arguments and demagogy. Isle of Man, Jersey and Kosovo are NOT countries in the same way as France, England and Italy, and that is already established on wikipedia years ago. So we must correct that, by adding proper subcategory to this template. --Anastan (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your answer is not very helpful. And I can't see any fake arguments nor demagogy. I kindly asked, how can I classify anything on the Isle of Man, considering that this area is not part of the United Kingdom. What is the country in this case? Or what other category can be used?-- Gürbetaler (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, my answer is very helpful, but you just maybe dont like it. :) Isle of Man is crown dependency, so as i said, We should follow already established format from Wiki template i linked. Template:Sovereign_states_of_Europe Is there something someone dont understand? Of course not. --Anastan (talk) 11:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Your other navbox is wrong about the British Crown Dependencies that you sort within UK. They are absolutely not part of UK, fully independant from it. Absolutely no British law apply to them (there's only a bilateral agreement about the freedom of movement of UK, JE, IM, and GG citizens and absence of tax duties between these British isles; they have separate currencies (but bilateral agreements for the rate of exchange); and these dependencies have chosen themselves to be internationally represented by UK, but this does not mean that UK can engage them in international treaties, as the ratification by UK does not apply to the dependencies if their states do not ratify the same treaties (and they can still decide to ratify but under different conditions: the British parliament and government cannot decide for them). They are nearly independant states, except that they are dependencies of the Crown, which itself has no UN membership because the Crown **itself** chose to be reprensented by UK ! In summary their status is similar to associated states in the Pacific: together (within the British Crown, where they are 3 subdivisions with large autonomy) they are self-governing. verdy_p (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

CZ/CZR for temporary transitional disunity[edit]

@ŠJů: You have, both now and in January, made edits that duplicate the entry for Czechia/The Czech Republic. The problem with this is that, for example in the basic template (with no prefix/suffix), both of these are valid page names and both redirect to Česko. Having two identical entries in the list that go to the same destination looks bad and is confusing to the user with no benefit. I assume you are trying to fix a problem in some other application with a prefix/suffix – is there possibly a different solution to the issue that you are (presumably) trying to fix? — Julian H. 14:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Julian Herzog: The main problem is that Commons (and en:wiki) call Czechia by its current republican political name instead by its timeless geographical name as most of other countries. Czech Republic was created in 1969 and became independent in 1993, while Czechia as a country has its identity (under various names and political forms) through many centuries (group of Czech lands under Bohemian Crown, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia or German protectorate). The modern republican name looks absurdly especially in historic contexts ("1868 in the Czech Republic", Comenius or Jan Hus as "Educators from the Czech Republic" etc.). The English geographical name of Czechia has some problems and arouses some resistance, but we have no synonymous alternative. As the Czech government and Ministry of Foreign Affairs definitely confirmed Czechia as the official English short form of the country name in 2016 again (see en:Name of the Czech Republic#Adoption of Czechia) and the name was entered (again) to the official UN and ISO registries, two (non-Czech) Commons users started mass rename of Commons categories. However, this action met a resistance of some other users. A discussion was started, but there is not consensus for anything finish the action nor revert the action. Although most of relevant national and international authorities accepted or even supports the short name, it is not widely used in English still. (As was said, both forms can be equivalent for the current country but the long (political) form is absolutelly nonadequate and unusable for pre-1969 context. I mean, the form Czechia has a little prevalence in the discussion (and the opponents brought no consistent alternative solution IMHO), but nobody has enough of courage and respect to decide it finally and be attacked by the opponents.
I hope, the disunity will be solved in several years. Meanwhile, a basic functionality of the template for both used forms needs to be preserved. The navibox should detect whatever of the two forms. Redirect pages need not to be linked but the template is not able to filter them out. If the target category is not redirected, only one of the two links (that one which exists) is displayed in the template. --ŠJů (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů: Listing both variants here doesn't work, as you can see, because this template is not built for general fallback names. Leaving it as it is now for years would be a very bad solution in my opinion. I feel like this should be solved by creating redirects where necessary, one way or the other, because both variants are arguably correct at least in some cases. I.e., only list "Czechia" here and create a redirect to "Czech Republic" in cases where that name is still used instead. — Julian H. 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Julian Herzog: The template has some problems when the country name is at the start of the page/category name (it is not able to leave "the" out) but the same problem it has with "the Netherlands" or "the United Kingdom".
You're wrong, the template correctly handles the insertion of "the" before country names requiring them after words like "in"/"of" (see Template:Countries of Europe/catname: there's an extra {{{1|}}} present in front of their English name where needed: it will be set first with "|1=the", then to "|1="; countries names that have no such article ignore this parameter completely and no article will ever be generated, and a single category or page name will be tested). verdy_p (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The second problem of the template is that it is not able to distinguish redirect pages.
This is general in all templates: we still cannot detect with some builtin parser function (or even with a Lua module) that a pagename is a redirect (even if MediaWiki internally has info about it, it is not exposed in its API; and it would only work for hard redirects starting by #REDIRECT, but not for soft-redirect where MediaWiki knows nothing; we cannot also test if the target page is a member of some category; may be in Lua we could get the list of categories a page is a member of and we could do what external bots are already detecting this way).
In all cases, even when a page is a hard #REDIRECT, we cannot determine where it is going to: the only way would be to transclude its source without expanding it, and then parse the start of the content to see if it matches the Perl-style regexp /#REDIRECT\W*\[\[\W*([^\|\]\n\r]+)\W*\]\]/i (with letter case ignored in "REDIRECT"): such source transclusion does not need to transclude the full content of the page, loading only the first 512 bytes would be enough (this should be confirmed by checking what itself MediaWiki does to detect and resolve fast all hard redirects without parsing and expanding a page completely. But I think it stores internally the result of this detection in some index that could be exposed by the API, and made available in Lua or with a builtin parser function, whose cost would even be much lower than a standard template transclusion and even lower than invoking a custom Lua module to perform this test: I'd vote for the addition of such builtin parser function that would simply return an empy strings for normal pages, and would return the full pagename of the target of the hard redirect, without even testing for its existence, i.e. ignoring possibly broken hard redirects). verdy_p (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The third problem is with the displayed country name (which is not able to distinguish Czechia from the Czech Republic). However, as regards the links (and they are the main purpose of the template), listing both variants works perfectly, just as it should work. It is definitely better to detect both forms simply by one template, than create hundreds or thousands of controversial temporary redirects (a linking only through redirects causes many ohter problems) – it is better to wait for the definitive solution. But the naviboxes should work even meanwhile, during the whole transitional period. --ŠJů (talk) 15:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@ŠJů: I get that it would be annoying to create many redirects, but the problem is that some are already there and then it looks like in Category:Culture of Albania, i.e.
[...] · Croatia · Czech Republic · Czech Republic · Cyprus · Denmark [...] .
Also, I don't see why these redirects would be either controversial or temporary. Surely, the discussion is about which version to use, but in any case, the other version would still be valid as a redirect since it would not be wrong? One is still the official full name, the other an official short name of the country, after all. — Julian H. 16:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@Julian Herzog: The displayed text depends on the language set, e.g. I can see there "Bulharsko · Černá Hora · Česko · Česko · Dánsko · Estonsko". However, one of the two "Česko" links to "Culture of Czechia", the second to "Culture of the Czech Republic", i.e. the two links are clearly NOT identical. One of them links directly to the target category, second one through a redirect - no confusion is possible. It's strange that "Czech Republic" is displayed as an equivalent of "Česko". Really, "Czech Republic" is an equivalent of "Česká republika", and "Czechia" is an equivalent of "Česko". I didn't find which function or script generates this label from the catname specification which distinguish (correctly) the country from the republic.
When two different links with identic description are paralelly displayed, it may look as a cosmetic defect, but it is the most simple and most effective way how to treat the existing disunity until is solved. If we would use only one of the two forms in the template, we need not only create many redirects for now, but also to program a bot which will everyday seek for new categories with the second form to create a redirect from the first form. (And the script adding a navitemplate to the categories would need to be reprogrammed to place the template to the target category, not to the redirect page.) The template with both forms can find both forms simply, immediately, without any additional programming, without a permanently running bot, without create hunderds needless temporary redirect pages. This cosmetic defect is more noticeable, but it doesn't really disrupt the function of the navibox. On the contrary, if a navibox displays no link (even though the adequate category exists in the second format), it's a serious functional fault. You say "I don't see why these redirects would be either controversial or temporary" but a decision to have ALL categories related to Czechia permanently and systematically duplicated would be very more problematic and more troublesome than this small and effective temporary adaptation of one navigation template. --ŠJů (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Rename template[edit]

I am proposing to rename this template to Template:Sovereign states of Europe as per this wikipedia template. Its far better for neutrality, better categorization and further corrections. I am creating now States with limited recognition template and also Dependencies template. --Anastan (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

First template is here, and still under constructnion: Template:States with limited recognition in Europe --Anastan (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man (which also have their own ISO code) are self-governing, and 'not part of GB, even if the are dependencies of the British Crown (which is itself independant from UK). As well Kosovo is self-governed and recognized by many European countries. Gibraltar (just like all other oversea territories of the United Kingdom) is also not formally part of the United Kingdom; it is not fully sovereign (unlike JE, GG and IM, despite of their formal attachment to the British Crown, but the British Crown does not govern them at all, it is only represented by "its" lieutenant-generals nominated by the Queen, but they do not have any executive or legislative power except protecting the local fundamental law and local citizen rights).
The situation is complicate, and we don't need to give more details: the term "country" in the header does not differentiate the status at UN, otherwise it would have been "UN members in Europe", a non-sense for this basicx navbox. Further details can be found in the respective categories or in articles. verdy_p (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Please, @Verdy p:, reply to me with only one word, yes or no. Are the Kosovo, Gibraltar and Jersey legally, politically and de facto in the same status as Germany, France or Canada? --Anastan (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The status is not relevant for this simple box used to navigate across categories. The box is not used for "UN members" only, and we need to find them even when they are NOT part of other UN member entities (Jersey is not part of UK)... verdy_p (talk) 05:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway your new replacement template was completely broken, did not render correctly. You'll note that I have put them in a separate sublist in a compromize, to mitigate this kind of unfruitful discussions: they are no longer in the first list of "countries" if that is shocking you. There are now two separate sublists for states with specific status (recognized entities, but not UN members and formally not part of UK, or completely detached from it in the case of the 3 British crown dependancies), and for "limited recognition" (I voluntarily did not use the term "state" or any other status, which is also contested and would lead to other unfruitful discussions).
You may need to add missing translations for their heading labels, and add new sorted lists for them.
Note: your argument "better categorisation" is completely void/irrelevant; there was (and still there is) no problem of categorisation for them caused by the template itself (which only links to them but does not create any category or performs any categorisation of pages where it is included). Categorisation is done exclusively within file description pages, gallery pages, or category pages themselves (possibly with other helper templates, but not this one).
verdy_p (talk) 09:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Also your nav box does not fit verywell, it is only suited for a few articles in Wikipedia but not for filling many categories where we want it to remain short and extremely simple (not using too much space at top of pages). You may want to use it in gallery pages, but it will no longer fit at top of pages (like in categories where we only want links), but only at bottom, because it is much too large. verdy_p (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, now this template is proper, correct and neutral. You did great! --Anastan (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

"Lua error: not enough memory."[edit]

Strange error in single-year categories ("2005_events_in_..."), as example Category:2005_events_in_Finland or Category:2005_events_in_Russia, in some user's interface languages (as example, in Russian), instead "France" showing error message "Lua error: not enough memory". --Kaganer (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Slowness and Lua errors on pages that make use of this template. Estormiz (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
This template breaks the page load fully, reported at phab:T171392. -- User: Perhelion 12:26, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
OK - thank you for this information --Estormiz (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Kaganer + Estormiz + Perhelion: See #Module:Country below for a possible solution. Johnuniq (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Module:Country[edit]

I saw a report about the many pages in Category:Pages with script errors. Some of those problems are due to use of this template because the Lua memory limit can be exceeded. I have written a new module to avoid the issue:

The main and sandbox templates have been swapped since the following was written. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
For example, Category:Netherlands includes {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:}}. Examining the HTML source of a sandbox with a preview of that template wikitext shows:

Expensive parser function count: 126/500
Lua time usage: 4.302/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 46.3 MB/50 MB

Doing the same with {{Countries of Europe/sandbox|prefix=:Category:}} shows:

Expensive parser function count: 66/500
Lua time usage: 0.056/10.000 seconds
Lua memory usage: 1.05 MB/50 MB

A demonstration is at Module talk:Countries. This is the first revision of the module and there are probably things which need fixing. However, it is ready for testing. Johnuniq (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

mw.wikibase.label does not allow customization of lang via a parameter. See also phab:T171392#3565472, phab:T171392#3573615 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, but Template:Countries_of_Europe always uses the current user's language. The only way to view the results of the template in a language that is different from the current user's setting is to append for example ?uselang=fr to the URL of the page. That works with the new module as well after I just fixed it to use Module:Fallback:
mw.wikibase.label is documented as using language fallbacks.
Is there a test which shows Template:Countries of Europe and Template:Countries of Europe/sandbox giving different results? Johnuniq (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
As a test, I copied the HTML source for the Countries of Europe box from Category:Netherlands and compared it with the same from Module_talk:Countries. The two HTML source extracts were identical except for an extra (redundant) space in the template output at three different places. I did the same after adding ?uselang=qug and ?uselang=fa and got exactly the same difference. That is a pretty good test showing the module does what is expected, at least for these cases. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments updated after module moved. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

LTR mark in link[edit]

Why is a left-to-right mark in the links generated by the template? For example, Category:Euro coins of Austria includes:

  • {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:Euro coins of}}

The box that it displays includes a link to Category:Euro coins of Belgium. The wikitext that generates the link has the form:

[[<Prefix><Sep><Name><Ltr><Sep><Suffix>|<bdi><Label></bdi>]]

where

<Prefix> is :Category:Euro coins of
<Sep> is a space
<Name> is Belgium
<Ltr> is U+200E left-to-right mark
<Suffix> is empty
<bdi> is bidirectional isolation

Inspecting the HTML source of a page with the template does not show an LTR mark in the link, even when a suffix is present, so I'm wondering what purpose it serves. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I see from the history of Template:Countries of Europe/item that it included the LTR mark from the beginning (October 2016). I'm just curious and don't really need to know the purpose, but verdy_p may like to comment here and in the previous section. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know how this LTR control came there before the suffix in the displayed label, probably it was part of a copy-pasted substring but I don't see any rationale for that. I removed it, may be it could cause some problems with wome pages in Arabic/Hebrew but I don't see which one it could be, given that strings are isolated with bdi. The initial design did not use isolation with bdi but required bdi overrides. verdy_p (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Note that in the first version in October, the LRM mark was encoded VISIBLY with a character entity, that got replaced later by the invisible control. The LRM mark was no longer necessary after using bdi but it was no longer sibile when I added that. Its presence may have been caused by the former names of the tested pages or categories using mixed scripts where LRM were present in their names It requires investigations because the cases that may have existed in 2016 may no longer apply (I think we should look at categoy names or pages names using mixed script (Arabic+Latin, probably with Latin in only one of the three parts: prefix, name, suffix; if it was needed, it was because there were suffixes in Latin with parentheses that were incorrectly mirrored when rendered). verdy_p (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to use wikitext from sandbox[edit]

Category:Pages with script errors lists many pages that have hit the Lua memory limit due to use of this template, for example Category:1860s works in Sweden. The sandbox template (which uses Module:Countries) works well:

  • {{Countries of Europe/sandbox|prefix=:Category:1860s works in}}

The following now uses the main template because the main/sandbox templates have been swapped. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Another comparison can be seen at:

  • sandbox shows {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:}}
  • sandbox2 shows {{Countries of Europe/sandbox|prefix=:Category:}}

The NewPP limit reports for those pages show that the current template requires over 4 seconds of Lua time and 44 MB to render the page, while the sandbox code uses 0.07 seconds and 1.1 MB. The difference in rendering speed is clear if, for example, the ?uselang=qug link is clicked.

phab:T171392 shows plans to rework Module:Fallback and that would be desirable. Meanwhile, I propose that this template be switched to use the code in its sandbox to eliminate the script errors. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I switched the templates with the result:
Before making the change, Category:Pages with script errors listed 369 subcategories and 151 pages with errors. For example, France had 122 error messages saying "the time allocated for running scripts has expired".
The error category now lists 76 subcategories and 150 pages with errors. The number of errors will fall as further entries are purged. France has no errors. Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
After some purging, the category lists 6 subcategories and 126 pages with errors. I do not see any that are related to use of this template. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Comments updated after module moved. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Czechia/Czech Republic[edit]

There are categories of the Czech Republic that have been renamed using "Czechia" without care for meta templates like this one, e.g. Category:Musical groups from Czechia. Module should be updated to handle that case if possible. --2A02:2788:AA:25D:21B:25FF:FEE6:9277 12:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there an example of a page where a problem can be seen because of the Czechia issue? What exactly is the problem? Can you spell out what the module might do differently? At enwiki, en:Czechia is a redirect to en:Czech Republic. Does anyone know of a discussion here concerning what name "should" be used? Johnuniq (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Problem is with navigational box links:
  • on other pages than Czechia, the navigational link for the Czechia page points to a redirection instead of directly to the correct page, so you land on the redirect page first (it's a stand-alone page in the case of categories), that's clearly not a navigation "aid";
  • on a Czechia page, the navigational link doesn't exactly match the page and so is not highlighted in the navigational box. Then you can't quickly see if/where the page is in the box, and it's rather odd to be allowed to follow a link that eventually lands you on the same page you came from.
So, simply said, links in navigational boxes should not point to redirects, as that degrades the user interface functionality. --2A02:2788:AA:25D:240:41FF:FE05:A747 12:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The point is illustrated by the navbox at the top of Category:Musical groups from Czechia which includes the link Czech Republic. Clicking that link goes to a redirect page that displays "This category is located at Category:Musical groups from Czechia". It is not feasible for a template or module to determine whether a link is to a redirect, and to make the link point to the target of the redirect.
The reason the problem exists is that enthusiasts have been changing "Czech Republic" to "Czechia" without linking to a discussion that endorses such activity. The enwiki community seems to think that en:Czech Republic should be used, with agreement at Wikidata's d:Q213 which has the en title Czech Republic. A discussion at a noticeboard could decide whether all "Czech Republic" should be replaced with "Czechia". If yes, this template can be changed so it does not mention Czech Republic.
@Zhuyifei1999: Any suggestions? Should the template replace all mention of "Czech Republic" with "Czechia"? Is there a reasonable way to determine whether any Czech Republic pages still exist? Should any such pages be renamed to use Czechia? Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Do we have a preference regarding "Czech Republic" vs "Czechia"? To find if any pages still exist, Special:Search with 'intitle:' should work. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I hard-coded the country into my fallback kludge. But it is namely a fallback that chooses the longer form wherever such a page exists (e.g. as {{catredirect}}). It helps against red links only. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Georgia and related[edit]

@Aftabuzzaman, Incnis Mrsi: Before getting to the point of this message, I'll mention that I recently created Module talk:Countries/show to display country information. It has a link to the Wikidata item for each country.

This template has trouble dealing with a country with a mixture of names at Commons, and there is a discussion regarding Category:Georgia at Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/03/Category:Georgia. I gather that Incnis Mrsi is working on a procedure that would use "Georgia (country)" (redirects to საქართველო) as the name for the country in Module:Countries/Europe (currently at Module:Countries/Europe/sandbox). Assuming that the approach is wanted, it would be better to define an extra field in the countries table although I haven't thought about the details. The idea would be that instead of using 'Georgia (country)' for GE and 'Ireland - Éire' for IE, the table would use "Georgia" and "Ireland" because they work with related categories such as Category:1882 in Georgia. Instead, a new field would specify an alternate name to be used (...details go here...). I can think about that in a day or two if needed.

When I have time, I'll consider whether this would help with the issue at #Czechia/Czech Republic above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, see Template:Countries of Europe/testcases. I have a list of links on my user page (until I get around to finding a better place). Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: look at testcases after this. You gave “Georgia” a priority over “Georgia (country)”; don’t do it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm doing some massive experiments at the moment and will ask you to check the results when done. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on CZR and have made some progress but I need a break. I think there is no hurry and I should finish within a couple of days. Georgia is broken at the moment but it should be fixable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: is my fallback—first try with (country), then plainly—poor? Or do you hope to build a solution accounting for {{catredirect}}s? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly confused after some hours of coding and don't want to attempt any more thinking at the moment. I was hoping to find a system that would be more generic because relying on coding an exception for CZR and IE is likely to not cover enough cases. It occurred to me that finding a redirect should be regarded as evidence that the target of the redirect was the wanted link but I got lost due to some minor bugs. I'm hoping to find a solution which handles the points raised at #Czechia/Czech Republic above (I think that is working). Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I can't recall what made me put "Georgia" before "Georgia (country)" in Module:Countries/Europe/sandbox. I was focused on CZR and might have planned to think about Georgia later. At any rate, my latest tweak to Module:Countries/sandbox appears to be giving good results although I will need to spend hours checking the code and the results before I am confident it is ok. I suspect that changing the order for Georgia would not affect the result produced by the module now, so putting the "(country)" entry first might be more logical. Hmm, saying that made me think of my reason: putting "Georgia" first means that it is tested first and it will often work and so will give less overall overhead; having "Georgia (country)" first would only work for one case, namely Georgia (country) when there is no prefix or suffix. However, that's a trivial issue given the amount of work the module is doing. Johnuniq (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
{{Dab}} is an alias for {{disambig}}, not covered by your regexp, but I don’t deem it significant because, in any case, we can edit the category page in question. Checking for disambiguation is great, deploy. It’s more than hour after midnight on my meridian and I must go to bed now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking and thanks for the point about {dab}. It was simple to do, so I made the module detect dab as well as disambig. I expect to deploy in under 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
By the way, are you aware of MediaWiki:Disambiguationspage? I didn’t expect such an elegant solution, although it likely is of more use for SQL applications rather than Lua. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, things get complex. I just updated the main module so the new code is live. Next update {{Disambiguation}} should probably be added to the dab-detection regex but it's not needed now. Also in the future, we could investigate how much overhead would be involved in getting the module to check every link. At the moment (to minimize overhead), it checks all links for existence, and only checks for a redirect or dab if the particular country has alternate names provided. That is, only for Europe, and only for CZR, GE and IE. I started looking at the NewPP report in the HTML source at User:Johnuniq/sandbox2 (permalink). On that page, the Main values are for the old module where it did not check for a redirect or dab, while the Sandbox values are for the new version which does the checks for three countries. I don't understand why there is such a tiny difference. I would have thought Scribunto would have to do more work even if for only three countries, although it might be caching the content for the four navboxes on the page. If the module checked every country, quite a lot of changes would occur, for example Denmark would be Denmark (the latter goes to Danmark). Johnuniq (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

2 uncontroversial corrections[edit]

Hi all, I see two mistakes in the template, but I don't know how to make the corrections by myself:

  • "Czech Republic" and "Cyprus" should be swapped to follow the alphabetical order;
  • "Ukraine" currently appears as "Pologne" (!)

Can anyone take care of these? Thanks. --LamBoet (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@LamBoet: Names of countries come from Wikidata so it can be awkward finding why something is broken. I recently created Module talk:Countries/show to list the countries with their Wikidata items so they can be checked more easily. In this case, the Ukraine issue was due to vandalism at d:Q212 which was reverted 9 hours later. Any affected pages may need to be purged to show "Ukraine". One way to do that is to click "edit" for the whole page, then "publish" (without making any changes).
I fixed the sorting for CZR/CY, at least for English. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, thank you for the explanation and the fix. --LamBoet (talk) 08:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Countries of Europe and "Hidden categories"[edit]

Hello all,

I'm having a problem with "Hidden categories":

I added __HIDDENCAT__ to "Template:Portugal photographs taken on navbox", but it doesen't work correctly until I added {{Countries of Europe|prefix=:Category:|suffix=photographs taken on ...}} to the specific categories.

For example, "Non-topical/index:Hidden categories" appears normally in "Category:Portugal photographs taken on 2017-04-18" but the category is not hidden in media in this category.

I then added the "Module:Countries/Europe" to "Category:Portugal photographs taken on 2017-04-18" and the media included are then listed correctly unter Hidden categories...

Where is the problem ? --Thor19 (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No idea about the problem, just a remark about Revision of Template:Portugal photographs taken on navbox – avoid line-feeds in templates except for inside <noinclude>. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Thor19: I am no MediaWiki expert, but how quickly after the __HIDDENCAT__ thing did you test for results? If quickly, then it may be a transient caching issue. BTW, the question seems to have no relation to Countries_of_Europe at all. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: Thank you for your quick reply.
I made the same change here Revision of Category:Germany photographs taken on 2017-06-10 and the category:Germany photographs taken on 2017-06-10 appears immediately in the Category:Hidden categories as you can see here[[1]].
You can do the same change for example in Category:Germany photographs taken on 2017-06-11 which does not appear yet in Category:Hidden categories (required for the media included).
But there are so many categories in "Hidden categories" (over 162 thousand currently) that the update may take some time... (I dont know, but the Template:Germany photographs taken on navbox was updated the 19 December 2017 with HIDDENCAT‎) ...
And I agree with you, some time "Module:Countries/Europe" is not present and the category is present in “Category:Hidden categories”. --Thor19 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As Incnis Mrsi said, it's just a caching issue. Updating categories can be fast or it may take several months. A quick way to test is to visit a page where the category should be present and should be hidden but isn't, then click Edit followed by Publish. The edit will not be recorded in history as it did not change anything, but the page will be purged. If it still does not show the category correctly, report the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi, Johnuniq: OK, it works, it was just a caching issue. But I find it abnormal that the cache does not be updated more regularly. Thank you. --Thor19 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Estonian translation[edit]

Please change "Konkreetne staatust" to "Konkreetne staatus" (into nominative case). I don't know where the string is at, so more experienced editors should do that. -Mardus /talk 08:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mardus: Revision of Module:Countries/Europe. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: that was fast :-). Thanks :D -Mardus /talk 10:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mardus: is Revision of Module:Countries/Europe good? It was not me, of course. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi: The translation is inaccurate:
  • Euroopa maad (en:Countries of Europe) was changed to Euroopa riigid (States of Europe), but not all countries in Europe are states;
  • Konkreetne staatus (en:Specific Status) was chaned to Eristaatus (Special status), which does not apply.
  • Osaliselt tunnustatud seems correct.
The two former changes (first & second) should be reverted. this IP editor is prolific, and possibly uses VPNs, and I also suspect IP sockpuppetry from this person, but have been unable to prove this. If this is the same person, then he/she has also been very stubborn in trying to get an upper hand in a conversation with me (I recall, there was one discussion around a about one file here in Commons). Considering this IP editor's history, then his/her English proficiency is not up to the kind of standard that would allow him/her to discern between the terms in the two points above. -Mardus /talk 00:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
As for these baseless and personal accusations, I'm going to reply on your talk page.
As for the relevant matter, firstly, fully recognized states are exactly what "Countries of Europe" is for, so "riigid" in Estonian is precise. The rest are in specific sections (specific status, limited recognition). See this template's page to check that. Secondly, as you probably know, "konkreetne" means 'concrete', 'particular' or something like that. This does not distinguish status of given countries from other countries. Status of Gibraltar, Guernsey etc. is special, different from ordinary country status or different from country status in general sense. So "eri-" (short for "eriline") 'special' should apply. Or at least it applys compared to "konkreetne" which is obviously wrong. Again, please check the template to see what these labels are actually used for. 90.191.81.65 16:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Countries translates to maad, while riigid translates to states. Since some territories have limited recognition, then not all countries in the navbox are states in their universal sense, so countries/maad encompasses all use cases, while states/riigid is too specific and does not encompass non-states, or territories with limited recognition. While there is overlap in meanings, then I have specified meanings, which best fit into the given context, and have less ambiguity overall.
'Konkreetne' is correct, as it translates from 'specific', which is the original term used in the English language. 'Specific' does not mean 'special', as 'special' translates to 'Eri-', which itself translates back to 'special', but not 'specific'. I actually did check the template. As far as I can see, you are conflating 'specific' with 'special', which is a mistranslation.
In addition, the navbox has to stay neutral, and must therefore avoid showing partiality to any kind of status. Hence, 'konkreetne'/'specific' was actually intended to convey, that certain territories have specific status, and is not supposed to convey, that the status of any territory is supposedly 'special'; because different parties have differing opinions regarding status. In this case, 'specific status'/'konkreetne staatus' are not meant to convey being special, but that the status of each territory is different, as it could specifically have:
  • limited recognition, or
  • non-statehood/dependency.
Here (above), 'specific'/'konkreetne' really is used to mean, that the status could have either or both; and not, that status is supposedly special. In conclusion, the field is meant to convey, that certain territories have different (specific) status relative to statehood, but not anything beyond the two bullet points, and certainly not specialness. -Mardus /talk 19:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
For some reason you imply that every word has one possible meaning and one possible translation. This is wrong. First of all, English word "country" is in fact translated as "maa" or "riik" depending on context. It doesn't stand for a state (I assume you use "state" for a fully recongnized country, a country with statehood) in all contexts. E.g. check here, most print dictionaries probably confirm that. Our current context is a label in front of a list of fully recongnized countries in Europe. So, "riigid" (sing. "riik"), which is used for fully recongnized countries, is correct. "Maad" is also correct since all "riigid" is a subclass of "maad", but it'd be less accurate here.
As for "eriline" ("eri-") it's the other way around, this translation is used for both "special" and "specific" depending on context. Again, check here. I used "special" and "specific" interchangeably above as the meaining of "specific status" is quite vague in this context. All we can tell from three sections of this template is that "specific status" countries are different from other countries and that their status is not different due to recognition issue as the latter is a separate section. Even if we'd try to make distinction between "special" and "specific" then keep in mind that "eriline" can still be appropriate translation for both, i.e. 1st and 3rd meaning here. And lastly, prefix "eri-" is also short for "erinev", another word with appropriate meaning in given context.
Also, if you put more effort than necessary into interprating this vague meaning of "special status" and make it into something more strict that is not neutral then you can probably do the same with "specific status".
"Konkreetne" is possible translation for "specific" depending on context, but as already described, it's not the right context here. In that sense, all countries, regardless whether they have statehood or not, have some "specific" status. The label however has to provide distinction. 90.191.81.65 20:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
You also seem to imply that "specific status" is label in front of types of specific status. So, just in case, I also point out that this is not the case, instead "specific status" is a label in front of four territories, e.g. see full list here. Apparently it may look as if "Limited recognition" is listed as a "Specific status" in case both of these lists are empty, like here. This may be confususing indeed and ideally the labels should be hidden when given lists are empty. 90.191.81.65 21:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
What I am trying to convey, is, that every word has a certain meaning depending on context, and the intended original meaning of country should not be changed to state, even in a translation. The navbox is about all countries listed, and each item qualifies, including Gibraltar, Isle of Man, and Kosovo.
If you were to try to change the English-language word from Countries to States, then you would be reverted immediately.
Your translation of "Euroopa riigid" (European states) only encompasses actual states, but not countries, which the navbox is actually about.
In this navbox, "Specific status" (Konkreetne staatus) does not in any way translate to "Special status" (Eristaatus). Specific (konkreetne) does not equal special (Eri-).
Therefore, in this context, the meaning of 'specific' is not vague, but intentionally neutral, because the phrase 'Specific status' precedes both dependencies and countries with limited recognition. That is why the word 'specific' is used, and not 'special', because 'special' could be misconstrued as being about territories with limited recognition, therefore 'special' is misleading.
'Special' is intentionally not used in the original in order to avoid according status to any territory below recognised states. Therefore, the translation that you are pushing, changes the meaning of the intended original, and it should not be so.
The label 'Specific' was never meant to provide distinction in the navbox, as much as you would like to with 'special'.
In your example, 'Specific status' is a label in front of nine territories, and not four, as you suggest. That is why 'specific' is used, and not 'special'. -Mardus /talk 15:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Ok, it looks that the underlying problem is that it's possible to consider latter two sections as part of the first section, and third section as part of the second one. Though, it's quite hard to read it like this as "Countries of Europe" label is not above all sections, it's instead in front of one particular section. I never thought of this possibility, and I doubt that many other users do. It's a simple template and so its content should be self-explanatory, I don't know how to alter its content so that it'd more clear.
As for our dipsute, I believe it's enough to look at documentation and code to resolve this confusion. Module:Countries/Europe#Lists says that sections of this template are defined as distinct lists. And module code provides three distinct lists, namely 'main', 'specific' and 'limited', and their header labels that we are translating here. Note that 'limited' list is not listed as part of 'specific' list. In output there's a dash between these two sections in order to make the two more clearly apart.
Even if 'limited' was shown as part of 'specific' then you still ignore that it nowhere says what this specific (concrete, particular) status is for Gibraltar and the rest listed under 'specific'. So your interpration makes little sense.
As for meanings and translations of 'specific', 'special', 'eriline', 'erinev' etc. you merely deny what I referenced above, and without providing much of an explanation nor references yourself. As for konkreetne not equaling 'eri-', that I can only concur, that's why I amended it. 90.191.81.65 16:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
'Specific' is not equal to 'Special'. That's how simple it is in English, and that is how simple it is in Estonian. Kosovo is a country, too, but has specific status, because it is partially recognised (see well below).
The English-language original says 'Specific' for a reason, and that is to avoid making any territory 'special' (even without quotes). The 'limited' list is actually part of 'Specific', which is why they are on the same line in output, and that is why 'Specific' precedes countries and territories that are dependencies, or which have limited recognition.
The reason for this choice of words is, that the status of small islands, dependencies, and territories with limited recognition always differs, and the word 'specific' encompasses them all. The word 'specific' is used purposefully not to denominate exact status, which 'Eri-'/'Special' would, but only the fact, that the status is different from states with full recognition.
Furthermore, if the status is special, then it is not supposed to be spelled out — for purposes of neutrality and NPOV, for example. -Mardus /talk 20:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Apparently different things denote as "simple" to different people. To me it's simple to understand that words like "specifc" and "special" have multiple meanings (check any dictionary), and that semantic fields of these words partially overlap, meaning that there are meanings that are shared between these two words. In sense that status of a territory is of special kind or of specific kind compared to most others there's a shared meaning and then these words can be used interchangeably. Your speculation on why 'specific' is used here and not 'special' is obscure and anything but self-explanatory. So attributing strict meanings though overinterpretation is useless here. 90.191.81.65 09:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You wanted a third opinion. In my opinion IP is correct here. "Specific status" is not a subset of "countries" and "limited recognition" is not subset of "specific status". So first set of the template applies for such countries, which are fully recognized independent states. I agree with IP's translations "Euroopa riigid" and "Eristaatus". Taivo (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Then why is it, that the English-language original has 'Specific status' (konkreetne), and not 'Special status', which translates to "Eri-", and not to 'konkreetne'?
I don't care very much. That's their problem. We are writing Estonian-language Wikipedia, not Estonian translation of English-language Wikipedia. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In my view, the structure reads like this:
Countries of Europe / Euroopa maad
  • Recognised states
  • [Countries] with specific (not special) status:
    • Dependencies
    • Those with limited recognition
'Specific' here encompasses both dependencies and territories with limited recognition, not just dependencies, which might not even have any special status. -Mardus /talk 20:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
It seems as if we didn't read and talk about the same template. Precise structure is as follows:
  • Countries of Europe: list of recongnized states
  • Specific status: list of dependencies – Limited recognition: list of countries with limited recongnition
Do you want me to make a screenshot to prove it?
Current structure was introduced in last May. I'm kind of ashamed to drag more people into this silly dispute, but, Verdy p, can you confirm that these three sections are intended to be distinct from each other? 90.191.81.65 09:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't like words "konkreetne staatus". I googled it and found almost ten occurrences, none of them is used for states/territories. Any case, "konkreetne staatus" is incorrect translation. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Paesi dell’Europa[edit]

@Verdy p: Revision of Module:Countries/Europe – why are you sure it needs definite article? It was simply “Paesi d’Europa”. And all the diff was not a minor edit anyway; don’t abuse the checkbox please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)