Africa Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

There's currently a discussion at template talk:East Asia over whether the official name of territory, namely special administrative region, and which sovereign State the territories listed belong to, have to be specified in the ((East Asia)) template. Please feel free to join the discussion and express your opinion. — Instantnood 11:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Should they be included? Most of the atlases I read seem to include them as part of Africa. --Chanheigeorge 08:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aren't they part of Spain and Portugal? — Instantnood 09:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have sorted countries by region and added thumbnail maps to match the Africa Template in the French language Wikipedia. I hope that nobody minds; it just always seemed a bit cluttered to have them all sorted alphabetically in one big box. ergot 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

===>I don't mind As I did virtually the same thing myself. It will probably get reverted as mine did, too. -Justin (koavf), talk 16:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not? I support this too: apropos, I tweaked the template to bring the country classifications inline with the subregional scheme used by the UN (which is as neutral as we're going get and in a quest of sorts to nix subjectivity from geographical articles). This is also reflected in their respective articles and the continental table below. I'll also tweak the article additionally to reflect this. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thanks! Sorting by region makes things easier for people who are interested in a specific region of Africa, and just seems to make more sense in general, for that matter. ergot 19:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Nice work, this is a significant improvement. — Matt Crypto 12:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Today I created the article Congo (region) mainly because I felt that it was missing from Template:Regions of the world. Only afterwards did I discover that Congo already exists, but that this article seems to restrict itself to dealing solely with the two Congos, and not the wider, vaguer subregion. What is the preferred option now: should Congo me merged with Congo (region) and redirect to Congo (disambiguation) instead? Please have your say here. Thanks.

And a related issue: I would argue that the UN designation Middle Africa - which currently redirects to Central Africa - is the least ambiguous name for the region, as listed at Template:Africa, just like Southern Africa is used to effectively disambiguate from South Africa. Please respond here. Thanks! // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 10:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where are islands: Tromelin, Glorioso, Basas da India, Europa? If those uninhabited islands are not to be mentioned, then remove silly Places of sovereignity, and BIOT as well. --24.43.253.97 03:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added them to the template, but have reverted myself after seeing the listing of France. — Instantnood 09:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see British Indian Ocean Territory and not French Southern Territories?

I added that teritory into a template :) --Goran.Smith2 06:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is the BIOT African by geography? — Instantnood 09:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the continental images as they occupied too much space in the template, if they are to be reintroduced, please make it more like Template:Oceania. --Cat out 13:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see #Template structure below. David Kernow (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I propose and recomend creating a seperate template for those. ((Europe)), ((Asia)) and other continental templates dont use them and I do not see why they should be used here. A seperate tempate for african teritories may be used. --Cat out 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please wait, pending discussion below (and at Template:Oceania and perhaps elswhere...)  Thank you, David Kernow (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copied from User talk:Cool Cat:

Hi Cool Cat,

(moved Template:Countries and territories of Africa to Template:Africa: moving back to proper location)

Just noticed your move; please help me understand why "Africa" is this template's "proper location". Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the intended function of the Continent template navboxes such as ((Africa)), ((Europe)) etc. was to link to countries (defacto or not) on a spesific continent. There are several reasons for this. Two of the important reasons are:

• To limit the number of entities that appear on the template for practical purposes: There are way too many countries in africa.
• POV concerns: Some people decide to add random "territories" of contraversial regions. If official UN territories are allowed, unoficial ones must be allowed as per WP:NPOV which only creates problems.

There are probably other reasons but I am at the moment focusing on these two.

For teritories a seperate ((Teritories of Africa)) may be used.

--Cat out 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

1. Unfortunately, I don't see how the name "Africa" will dissuade folk from adding "entities" and/or territories. When working within code, ((Africa)) does not indicate what aspect/s of Africa the template addresses. As the template (still) carries countries and territories, ((Countries and territories of Africa)) seems particularly appropriate.
2. You may not be aware that ((Navigation Template)) alone does not seem to accommodate smaller screen or window sizes, producing poor linewrap. That, at least, is the result here. If ((Navigation Template)) is able to overcome this apparent shortcoming, please advise.
3. As the region names are (currently) no longer aligned, distinguishing between each line of countries/territories is now not so straightforward. I suggest the small images further assisted this useful feature.

David Kernow (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cf here for a discussion pertaining to this template. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A suggestion for a standard approach to the naming, titling and sections of this and similar templates has been made here – please visit and share your thoughts!  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02-April-2008: I have grouped older topics above using headers "Topics from 2005" (etc.) to emphasize age of topics. Older topics might still apply, but using the tactic of yearly headers to note the age helps avoid rehashing old news, without archiving any ongoing issues. Also, new topics are more likely to be added at the bottom, not top. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

02-April-2008: It took a while to understand the "|" formerly between countries at the bottom, so I have split the unusual double list of "Dependencies| Unrecognized" into 2 separate groups similar to the region-groups, but with shading at left rather than left-side maps. After seeing that double list the first time, it took a while to notice there were 2 sets of country names, in alphabetic order, with a vertical bar "|" dividing the double list wrapped across 3 centered lines. At least I hope that's how the list was divided! I suspect whoever had developed the double list had overlooked the potential of splitting the list into 2 rows using colspan=2 to omit Africa maps at those 2 rows. Table formatting tends to be very complex, and many people still think they have to use quotes on table parameter values (such as: colspan="2"), but years ago I found those quote marks around "2" could be omitted (as: colspan=2). Anyway, let me know if there are problems with the double list as split into 2 groups for Dependencies and Unrecognized. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Sahara is actually recognized by mucho of the AU and Somaliland is de facto recognized by Djbouti. I'm renaming this section to "Disputed" which reflects the situation regardless of any shifts in diplomatic recognitions.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right now we have two Somali states listed under the Disputed section: Somaliland and Puntland. However, there is currently a third: Galmudug. Because the situation on the ground is so dynamic, I'm replacing these with the States and regions of Somalia article so we don't have to keep changing the template. (The other choice would be to list all three.) If there are other ideas here, just let me know.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am readding Somaliland, while leaving The link to states and regions of Somalia because Somaliland is the only state on the ground that is de facto independent AND asserting its complete independence. (in contrast to Puntland which advocates for a unified Somalia, similar to Galmudug, under their own 'leadership'.) Outback the koala (talk) 08:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Somaliland has also been more stable although the exact boundaries with Puntland have not been.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All right, I'm starting this section a day early.

Two areas of Africa present a challenge with this list: Western Sahara (widely recognized as a country but nearly completely occupied by Morrocco) and Somalia (widely recognized as a single country but lacking any central government with multiple de facto regional governments).

Western Sahara is listed twice, once as a recognized government and once as a disputed government and also footnoted. This is probably not ideal.

The former British Somaliland has a de facto government and multiple regional players are vying for control of the former Italian Somaliland, leaving both a disputed number of countries (1 vs 2) and multiple disputed governments. I don't think simply listing Somalia is meaningful but am open to ideas on how to best handle.

Maybe we should change the name of the section?RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somalia is not "widely recognized" as a single country. It is only recognized as a single country. And yes, it most certainly does have a central government (albeit, admittedly a weak one), which is internationally recognized. Also, the secessionist northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia is not, in fact, the former British Somaliland because British Somaliland comprised areas that territorially overlap with the modern-day Sool, Sanaag and Ayn regions which Somaliland does not control. See this for the details. Middayexpress (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm quite open to different ways of framing Western Sahara and Somalia land areas on a list of countries when those countries have competing governments or voids. Please continue to discuss on the discussion page rather than repeating that Somaliland is not recognized in anoteher WP:EW in addition to the on on the actual Somaliland article.

Recognition is strictly a de jure standard and so far on Whales (a region not a country) officialy does so. The issue here is whether Somaliland is a de facto country which even you seem to tacitly admit by linking to a election referendum they held.

I looked at how other similar de facto but unrecognized countries are handled and I think Transnistria might be a very close model here. The European lists show it as "Unrecognied". Transnistria remains a de facto country of course whether it has de jure recognition or not. But "Unrecognized" might be a clearer title than "Disputed" and it better matches your description above.

Does more accurately naming the section bring us to a consensus on Somalia by doing this?:

• Disputed: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic · Somali states
• Unrecognized: SomalilandRevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revelation Direct, there is a discussion regarding Somaliland ongoing on another template talk page here, where midday is also quite vocal. No need to go over the same ground twice regarding the inclusion of Somaliland. The standard is indeed de facto status. We should probably use this wikipedia FA quality page as our main reference: List of states with limited recognition

As far as as the current layout on this page goes, I think a better course of action would be to include all these entities in their respective regions(east, north...), but indicate through italicizing or number reference, whether it is unrecognized/disputed or whatever diction we decide to use in the final product. Outback the koala (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope you don't mind RevelationDirect, but I went ahead and addressed an error with the Western Sahara issue. "Western Sahara" is a neutral term; it refers to an area of land in dispute--it is not a name for a state, and therefore does not belong within a list of states. SADR is the state, so I swapped them around.

I'm a fan of simplifying templates, which I think should focus on aiding navigation rather than stupid technicalities like "Partly in Asia". I think many editors focus way too much on specifics when it comes to templates. I would recommend:

1. rename "Partially in Africa" to "Other areas" (or something equally generic)
2. mirror the areas listed in the second section of this template
3. move "Western Sahara" to the Other areas section (with small "disputed" in brackets)
4. remove the "Disputed areas" section at the bottom
5. list states with limited recognition as Outback said, in italics.

Also, on the matter of footnotes—and I may be way off on this one—but I'm fairly sure that most people would realise that "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha" includes "Saint Helena, Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha". I'd advocate listing the links to the individual islands (and removing the link to the collective dependency); or linking to the dependency and deleting the footnote—one or the other...

With all these changes, it would look like this:

((Navbox
|name  = Countries of Africa
|state = (({state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>))} 
|title=[[List of African countries and territories|Countries]] and territories of [[Africa]]
|titlestyle = (({titlestyle|))}
  |groupstyle = background:transparent; text-align:left;
  |liststyle  = padding:0.25em 0; line-height:1.4em; <!--otherwise lists can appear to form continuous whole-->

  |group1 = [[Image:LocationWesternAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Western Africa]] [[:Category:West Africa|West Africa]]
  |list1  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Benin]]((·w)) [[Burkina Faso]]((·w)) [[Cape Verde]]((·w)) [[Côte d'Ivoire]]((·w)) [[The Gambia]]((·w)) [[Ghana]]((·w)) [[Guinea]]((·w)) [[Guinea-Bissau]]((·w)) [[Liberia]]((·w)) [[Mali]]((·w)) [[Mauritania]]((·w)) [[Niger]]((·w)) [[Nigeria]]((·w)) [[Senegal]]((·w)) [[Sierra Leone]]((·w)) [[Togo]] ((nowrap end))

  |group2style = background:#f7f7f7;
  |group2 = [[Image:LocationNorthernAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Northern Africa]] [[:Category:North Africa|North Africa]]
  |list2  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Algeria]]((·w)) [[Egypt]]((·w)) [[Libya]]((·w)) [[Mauritania]]((·w)) [[Morocco]]((·w)) ''[[Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic]]''((·w)) [[Sudan]]((·w)) [[Tunisia]] ((nowrap end))

  |group3 = [[Image:LocationCentralMiddleAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Central Africa]] [[:Category:Central Africa|Central Africa]]
  |list3  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Angola]]((·w)) [[Burundi]]((·w)) [[Cameroon]]((·w)) [[Central African Republic]]((·w)) [[Chad]]((·w)) [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]((·w)) [[Republic of the Congo]]((·w)) [[Equatorial Guinea]]((·w)) [[Gabon]]((·w)) [[Rwanda]]((·w)) [[São Tomé and Príncipe]] ((nowrap end))

  |group4style = background:#f7f7f7;
  |group4 = [[Image:LocationEasternAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Eastern Africa]] [[:Category:East Africa|East Africa]]
  |list4  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Burundi]]((·w)) [[Comoros]]((·w)) [[Djibouti]]((·w)) [[Eritrea]]((·w)) [[Ethiopia]]((·w)) [[Kenya]]((·w)) [[Madagascar]]((·w)) [[Malawi]]((·w)) [[Mauritius]]((·w)) [[Mozambique]]((·w)) [[Seychelles]]((·w)) [[Somalia]]((·w)) [[Tanzania]]((·w)) [[Uganda]]((·w)) [[Zambia]]((·w)) [[Zimbabwe]] ((nowrap end))

  |group5 = [[Image:LocationSouthernAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Southern Africa]] [[:Category:Southern Africa|Southern Africa]]
  |list5  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Botswana]]((·w)) [[Lesotho]]((·w)) [[Namibia]]((·w)) [[South Africa]]((·w)) [[Swaziland]] ((nowrap end))

  |group7style = background:#f7f7f7;
  |group7 = ((pad|40px))Other areas
  |list7  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean|Iles Eparses]]((\w))[[Mayotte]]((\w))[[Réunion]] <small>(France)</small>((·w)) [[Madeira]] <small>(Portugal)</small>((·w)) [[Canary Islands]]((\w))[[Ceuta]]((\w))[[Melilla]]((\w))[[Spanish North Africa|Spanish Africa]] <small>(Spain)</small>((·w)) [[Southern Sudan]] <small>(Sudan)</small>((·w)) [[Zanzibar]] <small>(Tanzania)</small>((·w)) [[Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha]] <small>(United Kingdom)</small>((·w)) [[Socotra]] <small>(Yemen)</small>((·w)) [[Western Sahara]] <small>(disputed)</small> ((nowrap end))

|belowstyle = padding:0.3em 0 0.1em; line-height:1.3em;
|below = ''Italics'' indicate an [[List of states with limited recognition|unrecognised or partially recognised state]].
))

My inclination would be to include Somaliland simply since it's seeking recognition, and because it fits in the category as an "unrecognised or partially recognised state". And because we've listed it on the very page those words link to. Night w (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your response is, again, here. Please respond on that page so that there aren't multiple discussions going on pertaining to the same issue. Middayexpress (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Night, I like your premise about making the template less complicated and I've put some of your suggestions in the template. Using the template you referenced as a model has proved difficult though because it suffers from the same edit war as this one!

Since Western Sahara is a geographical area (although one clearly in Northern Africa), I was thinking we list it as such with the multiple governments listed paranthetically after it like so. Western Sahara (Corcas, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). While that lists both competing governments, Corcas maintains Western Sahara as part of Morocco, not a separate country. So, I'm thinking a reference under Morocco like this would be simple and even handed without listing non-countries (e.g. Western Sahara, Corcas):

((Navbox
|name  = Countries of Africa
|state = (({state<includeonly>|autocollapse</includeonly>))} 
|title=[[List of African countries and territories|Countries]] and territories of [[Africa]]
|titlestyle = (({titlestyle|))}
  |groupstyle = background:transparent; text-align:left;
  |liststyle  = padding:0.25em 0; line-height:1.4em; <!--otherwise lists can appear to form continuous whole-->

  |group1 = [[Image:LocationWesternAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Western Africa]] [[:Category:West Africa|West Africa]]
  |list1  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Benin]]((·w)) [[Burkina Faso]]((·w)) [[Cape Verde]]((·w)) [[Côte d'Ivoire]]((·w)) [[The Gambia]]((·w)) [[Ghana]]((·w)) [[Guinea]]((·w)) [[Guinea-Bissau]]((·w)) [[Liberia]]((·w)) [[Mali]]((·w)) [[Mauritania]]((·w)) [[Niger]]((·w)) [[Nigeria]]((·w)) [[Senegal]]((·w)) [[Sierra Leone]]((·w)) [[Togo]] ((nowrap end))

  |group2style = background:#f7f7f7;
  |group2 = [[Image:LocationNorthernAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Northern Africa]] [[:Category:North Africa|North Africa]]
  |list2  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Algeria]]((·w)) [[Egypt]]((·w)) [[Libya]]((·w)) [[Mauritania]]((·w)) [[Morocco]] ''([[Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic]])''((·w)) [[Sudan]]((·w)) [[Tunisia]]((nowrap end))

  |group3 = [[Image:LocationCentralMiddleAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Central Africa]] [[:Category:Central Africa|Central Africa]]
  |list3  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Angola]]((·w)) [[Burundi]]((·w)) [[Cameroon]]((·w)) [[Central African Republic]]((·w)) [[Chad]]((·w)) [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]]((·w)) [[Republic of the Congo]]((·w)) [[Equatorial Guinea]]((·w)) [[Gabon]]((·w)) [[Rwanda]]((·w)) [[São Tomé and Príncipe]] ((nowrap end))

  |group4style = background:#f7f7f7;
  |group4 = [[Image:LocationEasternAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Eastern Africa]] [[:Category:East Africa|East Africa]]
  |list4  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Burundi]]((·w)) [[Comoros]]((·w)) [[Djibouti]]((·w)) [[Eritrea]]((·w)) [[Ethiopia]]((·w)) [[Kenya]]((·w)) [[Madagascar]]((·w)) [[Malawi]]((·w)) [[Mauritius]]((·w)) [[Mozambique]]((·w)) [[Seychelles]]((·w)) [[Somalia]]((·w)) [[Tanzania]]((·w)) [[Uganda]]((·w)) [[Zambia]]((·w)) [[Zimbabwe]] ((nowrap end))

  |group5 = [[Image:LocationSouthernAfrica.png|40px|Map indicating Southern Africa]] [[:Category:Southern Africa|Southern Africa]]
  |list5  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Botswana]]((·w)) [[Lesotho]]((·w)) [[Namibia]]((·w)) [[South Africa]]((·w)) [[Swaziland]] ((nowrap end))

  |group6style = background:#f7f7f7;
  |group6 = ((pad|40px))[[List of countries spanning more than one continent#Non-contiguous|Partially in Africa]]
  |list6  = ((nowrap begin)) [[Scattered islands in the Indian Ocean|Iles Eparses]]((\w))[[Mayotte]]((\w))[[Réunion]] <small>([[France]])</small>((·w)) [[Pantelleria]] <small>([[Italy]])</small>((·w)) [[Madeira]] <small>([[Portugal]])</small>((·w)) [[Canary Islands]]((\w))[[Ceuta]]((\w))[[Melilla]] <small>([[Spain]])</small>((·w)) [[Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha]] <small>([[United Kingdom|UK]])</small>((·w)) [[Socotra]] <small>([[Yemen]])</small> ((nowrap end))

|belowstyle = padding:0.3em 0 0.1em; line-height:1.3em;
|below = ''Italics'' indicate an [[List of states with limited recognition|unrecognised or partially recognised state]].))

Obviously, if that's a workable format, we could apply it to you-know-where. Whadya think?RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here Here! What an improvement! Hats off to Night w. for his work here. Revelation, listing SADR under Morocco, is something that should probably be avoided for neutrality's sake, plus it appears as a state with limited recognition so it should be given a separate spotting( to do otherwise would make it appear as if it is some sub-national entity. I would prefer Night w's original work, to this revised version. (sorry I was writing this as you posted night w - so i inserted it here)Outback the koala (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd avoid putting SADR as a parenthesis after Morocco. Including it that way makes it looks like an independence movement within Morocco--which it is, but only from one perspective. I do see how that style would work for the Somali situation, but even then, it's picking a side. I also definitely think that, while it's not a political entity, Western Sahara should be included somewhere. More people will look for that than SADR, as not many people know what SADR is. Corcas should definitely not be listed, as it's just a committee...and most people won't know what it is or what state it's affiliated with. I'd stick with the names for the sovereign entities. I guess we'll see how the other template works out first. Night w (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Centralised discussion

A discussion is taking place here on how best to incorporate unrecognised states into a navigation template listing sovereign states and other entities. Some editors have suggested that including such states at all is pushing an imbalanced point of view. Others have made the same argument for not including them. Various conciliatory methods have been proposed, but have not acheived consensus. Editors should note that the outcome of this discussion will most likely have implications on this template aswell. For more information, please have a look at this casefile, or see the before-mentioned discussion page. Night w (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note that right now, at the bottom is listed "Iles Eparses / Mayotte / Réunion (France)". However, this should be refined. Reunion is part of France. It should be listed separately from the territories and posessions. Also, along those lines, there needs to be some clarity between areas that are parts of countries (e.g. Reunion is part of France, Socotra is part of Yemen, the Canaries, Ceuta, and Melilla are part of Spain), and those that are non-governing territories (e.g. Saint Helena is a territory of the UK, but not part of it; Mayotte is not part of France). --Golbez (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well we could indicate the differences through number indicators at the bottom of the template. This would indicate whether territory, dependancy, or a direct part of the country in question. Or should the wording I used be a little more refined to reflect the differences? Outback the koala (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Right now, it says "Partially in Africa". And of the nations mentioned, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and Yemen are indeed partially in Africa. But the UK is not, and the Iles Eparses and Mayotte are not part of France. So these three territories need to be separated from the actual countries that are partially in Africa. --Golbez (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Partially in Africa" replaced "Dependencies" and was meant to avoid the need for just this kind of footnote because Socotra and Reunion are not dependencies. Sounds like that isn't working for you on the dependencies though. I would favor renaming the section to something that encompasses both for simplicity and for lack of footnotes. An editor above suggested renaming to "Other areas" for different reasons. Would that work (without footnotes) or do you have some other suggestion for renaming the section? Or are confusing footnotes inevitable?RevelationDirect (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest something like...

• Partially in Africa: France (Réunion) · Italy (Pantelleria) · Portugal (Madeira) · Spain (Canary Islands / Ceuta / Melilla) · Yemen (Socotra)
• Dependencies in Africa: Iles Eparses (France) · Mayotte (France) · Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha (United Kingdom)

That way, we get the country name first (I'm always greatly annoyed when I see "French Guyana" listed as a country in South America. No, France is a country in South America), and the portion of it in Africa second, and the dependencies are properly set apart. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That works for me. Any disagreement before I make the change?RevelationDirect (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good and reasonable. I would agree and have no objection. Outback the koala (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely the disputed areas line of the template should have more entries? Western Sahara is not the only disputed territory. Examples that spring immediately to mind are Cueta/Melilla, French Southern and Antarctic Lands, Mayotte, the Somali section of Ethiopia. Should they be added? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point of the template is to list all of the territories in Africa, right? The countries (of course), the territories (of course), etc. But Western Sahara is a unique circumstance; some countries recognize Morocco as owning it, some countries recognize the SADR as owning it, and some countries recognize neither. That gives it an unusual status, and thus gets listed separately. Don't think of that section as listing all the disputed areas, think of it as saying, "This area doesn't fall into any of the other definitions, here you go". --Golbez (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Furthermore, while Morocco's unhappy about Ceuta and Melilla, I don't see any evidence of an actual diplomatic dispute over ownership. --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I completely understand! I'm just uncomfortable about it being called disputed areas. I'd argue Areas without a recognized government but understand that it's too long. Personally I'd prefer something along the line of Undetermined areas, although I recognize that that runs into the same vagueness issue.

See, that's an iffy thing, because it does have a recognized government. Two of them. :P And some people recognize no government, making it the only place that I know of, outside of Antarctica and Bir Tawil, where some nations officially define it as terra nullius. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a dispute about Cueta and Melilla. Here's a very biased (although with some good points) opinion piece about it. http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/144484 Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Based on a quick read, it still seems like Morocco wants the cities, but doesn't necessarily claim them. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or we could use the UN definition Non self-governing territory Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That would also apply to St. Helena, though, and thus dull the uniqueness of Western Sahara's situation. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I know, Morocco claims Cueta/Melilla along with a bunch of other small islands nominally controlled by Spain. A basic browsing on their respective wikipedia pages seems to say that too, but I guess I could be wrong.

That is true, but it would probably be less dulled then it is now... Unclear Sovereignty? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Sahara is not a country, it is purely a disputed area between Morocco and the SADR, both of which claim its whole and control part. So either "Other" or something broader like "Disputed Region"? --Golbez (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Sahara is the English name for the formerly Spanish territory, which is the area the SADR claims. "Other" seems to be the most discerning option, surprisingly. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Outdent) How about Unrecognized sovereignty, as no country (except themselves) and no UN body explicitly recognizes either definitively as controlling the Western Sahara. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They don't? I know the AU recognizes the SADR, as does at least (I think) Algeria, and I'm pretty sure at least some nations recognize Morocco. In fact, I think the only country completely on the fence is Canada... --Golbez (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. Good question. I know the AU recognizes the Polsario fronts existence, but not sure if they recognize their authority over the Western Sahara. The UN still lists the Western Sahara as a territory of Spain. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just noticed Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe lurking in East Africa. The articles put them in South Africa. Should I move them? --Redaktor (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, thats fine. Outback the koala (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done.--Redaktor (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mayotte won't be dependecy since 31 march —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.49.229.147 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the update, though I can't find a source saying March 31, do you have one? Either way, shouldn't make the edit til it happens. --Golbez (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't think Mayotte was ever a dependency, it's an integral part of France. Outback the koala (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. The integral parts of France are Metropolitan France, French Guyana, Reunion, Martinique, and Guadeloupe. Everything else - Mayotte, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, St. Martin, etc. - are dependencies. Mayotte will become an integral part of France later this year, which is what 95 was informing us of. --Golbez (talk)

Didn't that already happen on Jan 1st? btw, when I said ever I meant to say this year. Sorry I was super confusing. Ill look for sources.Outback the koala (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears to not have happened yet. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't find anything english about it. But the French wiki article has a lot it seems, hows your french? Outback the koala (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Southern Sudan has become a separate country to Sudan (9th June) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.172.164 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July. Not June. --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we can take South Sudan out of the partially-recognized category, don't you? The other recognitions are just a matter of time, and there's no serious contest to its independence (even the country from which it became independent has recognized it, after all). - Montréalais (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's some issue with Eritrea. I guess give it a few days to see how it plays out. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the issue stems from the Abyei region, which is to be decided in a future refererndum, according to the BBC ShawnIsHere: Now in colors 04:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abyei doesn't affect the South's independence. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone delete the island of Pantelleria from the African territories? Pantelleria is not located in Africa, but in between Sicily and the African continent. 85.56.136.168 (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe it's considered geologically African. It's certainly closer to Africa than it is to Europe. This would need more discussion before done. (Similarly: What about Socotra, geologically African and closer to Africa, but politically Asian?) --Golbez (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally I noticed that section States with limited recognition does not listed Azawad. I wanted to add that entity, but then I noticed in history that it actually became a political issue. As far as I understand, problem is that section is named states with limited recognition while Azawad is not recognized at all. It is clear that such guidance might lead reader astray to the conclusion that someone recognize Azawad. Anyway, this same section has listed Somaliland which also is not recognized at all. I figured it's unintentional omission but I anyway went to see other examples. Template Sovereign states of Europe in section States with limited recognition have both states with limited recognition and unrecognized entities (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Transnistria) while in the case of Asia case there is also Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. I'd love to hear your opinion before I make new edits.Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, what do you think about adding Ceuta, Melilla? Acording to this template they are Spanish autonomous cities in Africa (it probably is not formally equal in status to territory but I think it definitely belongs). There is also Canary Islands and Madeira?--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, the problem isn't the term limited recognition. After all, a state with no recognition obviously has its recognition extremely limited (See States with limited recognition). It was removed because it has collapsed, with the MNLA being replaced by the Islamists who reject independence. Due to this it doesn't exist in reality, as well as in international politics. Ceutra, Melilla, Canaries, and Plazas are already included under Spain, as they are not dependencies, but integral parts of Spain. Similarly, Madeira is included under Portugal. CMD (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I completely overlooked Portugal and Spain. I'm not too familiar with Azawad case, so unfortunately I didnt know for latest developments. Anyway, thanks for quick response time and explanation. Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

please add in the "Unclear Sovereignty" section: Bir Tawil 95.252.138.236 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree; it is a unique situation in the world, being the only instance of terra nullius. --Golbez (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Spelling mistake: "Orthogrpahic" should be "Orthographic" on line

| image = [[File:Africa (orthographic projection).svg|120px|Orthogrpahic projection of Africa]]

85.225.193.140 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whilst disputing the very inclusion of Madeira in this template concerning countries of Africa, due to the lack of cultural, economic and political integration, this is not the issue at hand.

Madeira is under the sovereign states section; The Autonomous Region of Madeira, whilst it does have an inherent autonomy from the Portuguese Republic, is generally and legally not considered a sovereign state; instead it is an autonomous region of the Portuguese Republic. Thus, I propose the relocation of the Madeira entry to the Territories and dependencies subdivision. ns_2 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't say Madeira is a sovereign state. It says Portugal is, and the specific part of Portugal is Madeira. It's not a dependency or territory, it's part of Portugal, just like Mayotte is part of France. --Golbez (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh. It just seemed slightly arbitrary. Thank you for clarification. ns_2 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]