Template:South America topic is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here first. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use ((edit template-protected)) to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here.

South America Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

ATTENTION This continent-topic template is transcluded on multiple navigational templates. If there is a technical problem with a specific transclusion (e.g., ((Topic of South America))), it cannot be corrected here. See the template's documentation for help with fixing a specific transclusion.

To-do list for Template:South America topic: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2018-10-27 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Refactor this template using a Lua module: see Wikipedia:Lua/To do

This template can be applied to almost any article with a title in the form [[X of South American country]]. Warofdreams talk 01:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neat, yet some articles are "Topic of Country" wereas others are named "Topic in country". It might be good to add one parametre to the template for that connecting word, and use a Robot to replace all the existing uses of the current template. What do you think? Mariano(t/c) 08:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I'd been thinking about this. It would slightly complicate the template, but I think that would be worth it in order to be able to use it on so many more articles. I'll test it out on Template:Africa_in_topic as that appears on very few pages at present. Warofdreams talk 12:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, if you are going for the change also in South America, don't have any 'friend' robot to do the job, and need a had to change the existing links, just et me know it. Mariano(t/c) 12:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now changed the template. It can now be used in the form ((South America in topic|Geography of)), where the text after the pipe can be anything. So this example will produce the box below Warofdreams talk 14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a second optional parameter, which if provided overrides the top level page. (I also fixed the positioning of the map graphic.) Example: Since there is not and probably never will be a "Flag of South America" page, on "Flag of" pages the template can be called:

. --ScottMainwaring 18:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good idea. Mariano(t/c) 08:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Is there any reason why Aruba is included, when it makes it clear in the article South America that it is not normally regarded as part of the continent and the article Aruba is categorised in Category:Central America rather than Category:South America? I've certainly never heard of it being considered as part of South America before, which is why I question its inclusion here - it would make far more sense to group it with the other Caribbean nations and territories. The same with Trinidad and Tobago - that nation is only extremely rarely considered part of South America. if these are to remain here, then for consistency's sake the Netherlands Antilles should also be included, though personally I'd far prefer it if none of them were part of this template. Grutness...wha? 00:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's best to keep this in line with Template:South America - adding the Netherlands Antilles, and debating what should be included on the South America template's talk page, which is likely to gain more input. Warofdreams talk 02:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is Panama included in this template? Last time i checked Panama wasnt in South America, even if it historically belonged to South America, it is no longer part, so it must go.mijotoba 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you should have checked elsewhere. For example, our article on Panama states that it is a transcontinental country, and it is include in Template:South America. I have reverted your removal of it. Warofdreams talk 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just wondering if it is possible to find this template in other languages. Thanks! - airezulian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Airezulian (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, it is only available in French, Romanian and Russian. These languages have interwiki links from the template page. For instance, the French version is at fr:Modèle:Sujets sur l'Amérique du Sud. If you might have a use for it in the Spanish or Portuguese Wikipedia, why not translate it yourself? Warofdreams talk 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

South America, Central America, and the Caribbean are closely connected historically and culturally, so readers should be able to navigate between these related articles. Both South America topic and North America topic are relatively short (and this way we could eliminate the footer about ambiguous countries), so merging them would be easy - see ((Americas topic)) for a rough idea of what a merged template would look like. I think this would be a very useful and practical way of linking related articles. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I had a bad reaction from WolfmanSF, I've reverted my bold merger. As a stylistic matter I think it's probably better to merge all instances than to merge just some (by allowing these and the Americas topic to coexist). Wolfman said on my talk page that we might as well merge all continents to a single template, but I think that is a ridiculous strawman. Other continents are not as connected culturally and historically as the Americas, and this combined navbox is still relatively small (the other problem with over-merging being excessive length). This template would also allow us to create links to ____ of the Caribbean, ____ of Latin America, and ____ of Central America as optional parameters. This would make sense where we have articles like Latin American art. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This merge discussion should be closed. As this discussion demonstrates, the "merged" template already exists at Template:Americas topic; there is no need to get rid of the South America- and North America-specific templates, as they are useful on their own. Neelix (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still think these should be redirected there (redirect proposal then?). It's better to be consistent, rather than having some "Americas" and some either south or north IMO. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong oppose - both of these are different continents, plus it should be borne in mind the large number of Caribbean nations.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The title comes out as Name of South America and not Names or Names of the territories/places or something like that, making it rather misleading. When I try to change it to South America topic|Names of , it doesn't work... (everything becomes redlinked as the "Names of" also applies to each place mentioned, eg "Names of Brazil", etc ). Can someone who knows how to change the title only please help do so? Kpufferfish (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Perhaps Curaçao and Aruba should be moved up along Bonaire in the parentheses following 'Netherlands', for they are neither 'dependencies' nor 'territories' but constituent *countries* of the Kingdom of Netherlands. Then the title 'Dependencies and territories' should better be replaced by 'Overseas territories' which the Falklands and South Georgia are. Apcbg (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The netherlands countries are in a fuzzy status. Not called dependencies, but remaining outside the main state. They're very similar to de jure dependencies. They'd fall under other territories on this I suppose (territories not being a label but a description). Another user recently tried to get Kingdom of the Netherlands on the Europe template and was reverted, so best to keep the templates similar. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing fuzzy at all. The Kingdom of Netherlands now comprises four constituent states that are constitutionally equal, namely the European Netherlands and three constituent countries in the Caribbean (Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten), and territories in the Caribbean that are incorporated into the European Netherlands (Bonaire, Saba and Saint Eustatius). Therefore, Curaçao and Aruba should be listed among the "states" not the "other territories", either separately or at least along with Bonaire.Apcbg (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, but the fact is that the Kingdom is overshadowed by the European Netherlands, a point complicated by the fact that the European part never bothered to get a new name once the Kingdom was extended. The CIA lists them as dependent territories, as the relationship involved is complicated. Names aside, it's not like a federation with equal states. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I beg to disagree, surely a name change would have made no difference in the constitutionally regulated relationship between the constituent countries. Apcbg (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to show that the European part is more closely related to the state than the others, a comment on the lack of distinction. It's actually an interesting constitutional situation, almost sui generis. Out of curiosity, do you know if they are there separate names in Dutch? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a special section on distinction. One thing they seem to do is shortening 'Kingdom of Netherlands' to 'Kingdom' not 'Netherlands'. ('Kingdom' might seem too general but then 'United Kingdom' or 'United States' are not particularly specific either :-).) By the way, the French arrangements for their non-European territories are probably more complicated, with overeas departments, 'communities' and overseas territories, although none of those is even remotely considered equal to France :-). Apcbg (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, their language, their right to make it confusing I suppose. Doesn't help us much with English though. France has weird things, noone knows what New Caledonia is, French Polynesia has a unique name with a normal status, etc. I think overseas departments are fully equal to European ones, some French politician said something along those lines when they were asked whether the overseas departments would use the Euro. Back to the netherlands, they've decided to confuse things more by including islands in the European (not European anymore I suppose) part but that remain outside the EU. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

120.28.127.179 (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: Empty request. (Serbia and Montenegro won't be added, if that was your question.) SiBr₄ ("CyberFour") (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template doesn't work on Telephone numbers in the Falkland Islands because of the "the" in that page's title. Since it's automated, it's hard to know how to edit around this: adding the "the" breaks too many other instances, I believe. Suggestions? ◦ Trey Maturin 17:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Wbm1058 (talk · contribs) solved it. Thanks! ◦ Trey Maturin 18:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trey Maturin: I just reverted to the 14:26, 15 September 2017 version of the template. I don't know what Azmi1995 was trying to accomplish with their four edits, as they left no edit summaries. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On pages that use this template – for example, see the bottom of List of airports in French Guiana – the entry for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is displaying as red and cannot be clicked to access that article. However, that article is indeed a valid article and should be accessible. I presume there's a problem with this template but do not know enough about templates to fix it. Can somebody please investigate and fix this? — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, that box points to airport lists for each polity. Is there one for SGSSI? CMD (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, there seems to be no page for "List of airports in South Georgia...". So it makes sense that the link is red, except that it results in a dead-end for users (which is the angle that brought me in, because the situation confused me). The territory's article – South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands – is valid, so maybe the link could be changed to the article itself? Or should the template remain red because there is no list of airports? Input appreciated. — Molly-in-md (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keeping the link red prevents a MOS:EASTEREGG link, but you're correct that it is a dead end. In this case the dead end is understandable as there are no airports. In situation where the dead end is simply because no article exists, the hope is that the red link encourages someone to create the relevant article. CMD (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see User talk:Peter Horn Proposed deletion of Rail transport in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands There never was, nor will there ever be a railway on South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Remove it from the template as irrelevant. Peter Horn User talk 22:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see again User talk:Peter Horn#Proposed deletion of Rail transport in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Peter Horn User talk 03:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes there were railways on South Georgia, see http://www.railwaysofthefarsouth.co.uk/11cwhaling.html. Apcbg (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

1. Delete the link in Venezuela, since there is no "Architecture" part in the page "Culture of Venezuela" 2. Change this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_Falkland_Islands to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Architecture

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.137.18.135 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: If the Falkland Islands' link is changed to include a section (#Architecture), then "Falkland Islands" will not appear unlinked and in boldface type (which it should) in the Culture of the Falkland Islands article. And while there is no "Architecture" section in the Culture of Venezuela article, the article is still about the entire culture, not just about the architecture. Indeed all the links on those pages about South American culture in this template are not just about architecture, they are all about "culture". Thank you for your suggestions! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 11:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Paraguay and Bolivia should be removed from the whaling template as these are landlocked countries. Bolivia did had a short coastline once, but it was highly underdeveloped and no whaling is known to have been carried out there. Sietecolores (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: No changes are needed to this template, they were needed at Whaling in Chile and Whaling in Argentina articles. Since only two countries in South America have "Whaling in <country>" articles, using ((South America topic|Whaling in)) in those articles mostly had red links and was unnecessary. I have removed them since it was redundant to the existing ((Whaling)). ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]