Template talk:Passports

message: *To Whom It May Concern: If I tell you that I come from China, would you first look at the centre of China on map? Would you speak  for us that how come the both sides of the Taiwan Strait use the same color, indicating that their capital city is in BEIJING? Would you protest for us or tend to keep silent because you don't want to be involved with such a political issue? If you simply want to ignore this matter, then following this policy would be the best option for you: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV--Earl of China (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC--Funandtrvl (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see this template disagreeing with the guideline? We refer to Taiwan as 'Republic of China (Taiwan)' "when identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC", exactly as proscribed by the guideline. It is not listed 'under' the PRC (i.e. within its brackets), rather next to it. We follow the United Nations geoscheme - that is the long-standing consensus here. I do not know what you wish to achieve by changing the link on this template - it does not move the actual article, which remains at Republic of China passport. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: State your reasons based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. So now the Wikipedia is part of UN geoscheme, or it's a choice that you made? Reminder: Your point of view is based on what you've stated previously. Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, or whatever you'd like to call this sovereign state, is placed under T section. --Earl of China (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please re-read my last comment. All of it still stands. Like I have asked, where do you believe we diverge from that guideline? We follow it exactly on this template. Please stop reverting, your edits change the link to point to a redirect. You cannot move an article from this template. It is technologically impossible. —what a crazy random happenstance 10:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: In brief, your comments is based on 'One China' policy, so you claim that "it also call itself China and should be under C". As a result, I'd need to ask, if I tell you that I come from China, would you first look at the centre of China on map? Would you speak for us that how come the both sides of the Taiwan Strait use the same color, indicating that their capital city is in BEIJING? In addition, if you only follow the UN geoscheme, then please check out the name of PRC had totally replaced the name of ROC in the report of the 60th anniversary of the UN, it mentioned that the PRC is one of the 5 veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council since 1946. Therefore, you cannot simply rely on this 'geoscheme', should place it under T. Moreover, when the secretary-general Ban Ki-moon claimed that Taiwan is part of China, U.S., Japan, and other countries opposed his opinion, and pointed out that he had overexplained the current status of Taiwan. Furthermore, you leave the note besides Taiwan, is one of the POINT of constructing this template? That is really political; you're involved, and I wont ignore this.--Earl of China (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments are not based on the One China policy. They are based on the Wikipedia guideline you just linked to. Have you read it? Taiwan appears exactly the same way on countless other templates - such as Template:Countries of Asia, and Template:Nationality laws. Your edit is arbitrary (which is against policy), and it goes against consensus and the very guideline you link to. The UN geoscheme covers the entire world. Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China. You have yet to demonstrate the problem. Moreover, your edit breaks the link. The article you link to - Taiwanese passport - does not exist. You cannot change the location of the article by editing the link here, you need to go to the article and move it (good luck... ). Do not assume I am biased, and do not comment on me as a person - it goes against policy. Comment on the template, not on your fellow contributors. Unless you can satisfactorily explain your changes - and so far I've barely understood anything you've written, your edits will be treated as non-constructive and be immediately reverted. Not just by me, but by others who watch this template. This is not an issue of bias. Even if it were, you need to discuss on talk, you cannot just revert and edit war. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you should act upon NPOV: Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, or whatever you'd like to call this sovereign state, should be placed under T section. Second, the notes under those templates deny the ROC's sovereignty due to political reasons, should be corrected. Third, please notice that the section in the 60th anniversary report regarding PRC has been one of the 5 veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council since 1946 was a WRONG statement; and you respect to this? Fourth, any statistics regarding Taiwan were in no data status after the ROC lost its membership in the UN, which means the UN does not cover this country; then why this UN geoscheme can cover the entire world? Furthermore, this template was constructed to present all passport issued in the world to Wikipedia readers, the note besides ROC should be taken off since it is out of its original purpose. Again, if I tell you that I come from China, would you first look at the centre of China on map? You said it also call itself China... The question is still here, would you speak for us that how come the both sides of the Taiwan Strait use the same color, indicating that their capital city is in BEIJING? --Earl of China (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof. It's the text right under the section you linked to. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. In addition, please note that the President Ma Ying-jeou also call the country Taiwan, and never simply called the soverign state that he represents "China". Do not further mislead the reader of Wikipedia.--Earl of China (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, please refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Republic of China, Taiwan, and variations thereof - the same naming convention to which you link. The name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is to be used "[w]hen identifying the state and attempting to differentiate it from the PRC", as it is here. —what a crazy random happenstance 12:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you do not have to repeat. It is I repeat: Generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T". Second, statistics regarding Taiwan are in no data status after the ROC lost its membership in the UN; and is not represented by the PRC government, thus the footnote It is listed following the member state the UN categorises it under has once again over-explained this sovereign state's current status. As a result, do not repeat your misconception and mislead the majority with your false mindset.--Earl of China (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not attack fellow editors, it is a violation of the No Personal Attacks policy. I have directed you to the relevant guideline which this article obeys in full - unless you can point me to another guideline/policy which contradicts and supersedes WP:NC-TW, which I find doubtful, you have no argument. Vague assertions of what you believe to be 'established convention' are hardly convincing. —what a crazy random happenstance 11:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you do not accept truth of fact; it should be called correcting. Second, provide fellow editors evidences that statistics regarding Taiwan are NOT in no data status after the ROC lost its membership in the UN since 1971; otherwise, any of your words will still be regarded as repeating misconception and misleading the majority with false mindset. Third, the ROC has not represented by the PRC government, thus the footnote It is listed following the member state the UN categorises it under is an over-explanation. If you disagree, provide evidence to prove your idea please; otherwise you're simply playing words. In addition, it has been stated much clearer that 'generally following the established convention of alphabetizing countries under their common names, the Republic of China (i.e. Taiwan) should be alphabetized under "T".' --Earl of China (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Because this is becoming a political football, to say the least, I propose that the countries and states with limited recognition be listed alphabetically within their continent's section. This would concur with the recommendations listed at: WP:NC-TW that say to list ROC under "T" for Taiwan. Using the UN geoscheme really has nothing to do with whether a country, territory, disputed state, etc., issues passports or not to their residents and/or citizens. Shouldn't this template be a list of passports without regard to whether the states are recognized or not by other countries, or by the UN? --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The very very extensive discussion in the archives of this talk page explains why the UN geoscheme was settled upon, and answers all the points you raise. Authority over the definition of state and its location (continent-wise) was delegated to the UN because any system we may concoct here would be inherently WP:OR, and prone to conflict (the discussion on the UN geoscheme was held following an edit war over the location of Turkey and Cyprus). Since I do not wish for a template that does not sort countries by continents, and does not differentiate the Disneyland passport from the British passport (thereby rendering it largely useless), the UN geoscheme is - whatever our opinions of the UN may be - simply necessary. Earl of China is raising irrelevant (and often incomprehensible) political points in an attempt to circumvent very clear and unambiguous naming guidelines. The United Nations geoscheme classifies the island of Taiwan as part of the Chinese state, as the note explains. Our naming conventions tell us to refer to Taiwan as 'Republic of China (Taiwan)'. Both of these are clear and hard to misinterpret, and a problem with the existing arrangement has yet to be raised in any cogent fashion. —what a crazy random happenstance 18:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since the UN geoscheme is being used, (sorry, I didn't go back and read all the archives), then this template is following that schema and does not need to be changed. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:  Unfortunately, I need to point out that User:Happenstance is still misleading fellow editors here. I KNOW OUR TIME IS PRECIOUS, BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND: The ROC (Taiwan) has not been represented by the PRC in the UN; therefore, (1) UN's statistics regarding Taiwan remains no data status since the ROC lost its membership in 1971. If consensus was made which based on over-explanation and ineffective rules, then it should be corrected. For instance, I'm sure after checking up the PRC's constitution, (2) most editors can say that China is a fully-democratic and liberalised country accordingly. Then this would form a consensus if no one points out that it is NOT a truth at the time when such consensus is made in wikipedia. As a result, as I questioned previously that how can the UN geoscheme covers the ENTIRE world when the ROC is not a member-state of the organisation and (3) its central bankers including the currect governor Perng Fai-nan strongly protests such consensus regarding its membership name (Taipei, China) in Asian Development Bank (ADB), every year? The truth was that the ADB changed the ROC's membership name when the ROC disagreed. As a result, the ROC's central bankers and official representatives always place a "under protest" sign besides the "Taipei, China" name plate since 1986. Furthermore, (4) why was that when the secretary-general Ban Ki-moon claimed that Taiwan is part of China, U.S., Japan, and other countries opposed his opinion, and pointed out that he had over-explained the current status of Taiwan IF The UN geoscheme classifies the island of Taiwan as part of the PRC is true? In short, the points regarding the footnote are (i) consensus and (ii) truth. These are directly relevant to the footnote It is listed following the member state the UN categorises it under  and is comprehensible. In consequence, I repeat, I do not think that this template was DESIGNED to distinguish which country represents the ROC in the UN since there's no such a truth. I provide those examples, hoping that fellower editors can understand that I speak based on facts and with reasons while another editor's simply NOT replying my questions. Finally, the consensus or careless mistake should be corrected accordingly, otherwise it is a ruthless conduct.--Earl of China (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refer to WP:NOR and WP:AGF. I shall repeat myself here: we already have a naming convention for these kinds of issues, and it is over at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). If you disagree with it, which you are most welcome to do, please raise your points at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), not here. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

text: The consensus for this template is to use the current UN geoscheme. In no way whatsoever is editor Happenstance misleading any fellow editors. If any editor has a disagreement with the way the UN is handling the Taiwan situation, then that editor needs to take it up with the parties involved (i.e., the UN, the ROC and the PRC), not here on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX for further guidelines. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Republic of China (Taiwan)

message: I had just deleted Iroquois and World passports from the templates. It isn't a passport but a camouflage one.
A passport is issued by a recognized State or by a subject of the international society such as Palestinian authority.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.71.8.131 (talk) 04:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fakes 

message: Why is Mexico not listed in North America?  It is not a Central American country.
I second that, Mexico is not in South America, it's part of North America.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.220.55.165 (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico

message: I moved Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the European section, given that these countries are members of the Council of Europe and are part of the European Union's enlargement agenda. From cultural and geopolitical points of view, these countries are part of the Eurosphere and are, therefore, European by most definitions. From a geographic point of view, some of their territories -- albeit not most -- are within the boundaries of the European continent. I understand that some of these countries encompass the Asian continent more than they encompass Europe, but that also applies to Russia, which was never included in the Asian passports section. Therefore, I think the new article version is more consistent with its classification of the various sovereign states. The UN geoscheme shouldn't be used to classify the passports into different regions. The UN geoscheme was made specifically for statistical purposes. It is not a political classification and, therefore, shouldn't be used when grouping the various passports of the World.
I also moved Afghanistan to the Central Asian subsection, and Iran to the Western Asian subsection. Afghanistan is culturally and politically closer to Central Asia than it is to Southern Asia. Geographically and historically, it was always considered to be part of Central Asia as well. Iran is Western Asian by all accounts, which isn't even debatable, in my opinion. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that all these countries have anything to do with Europe. I mean geographically (Armenia - 100% in Asia, Azerbaijan - mostly in Asia, Georgia - mostly in Asia and Turkey - 97% in Asia), ethnically (neither of them: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey; we can put in this group Israel, which is close to 50% European), religiously (only Armenia and Georgia), and culturally (possibly to some degree only Armenia and Georgia but that is also questionable, we can put in this group also Israel and Lebanon with over 40% Christian, which is close to some degree to the European Mediterranean culture). But you also mentioned Russia, which is ethnically, religiously, and culturally European with the only negative issue that we can find is the geography, which is the result of the expansion of the Russian empire into the Asian continent. You mentioned the membership in the Council of Europe, which was a result of the European demands for expansion of the European economic and geopolitical domination/imperialism outside of the European continent (Similar to the Euro-Mediterranean Union that encompass all the Mediterranean countries in North Africa and the Levant. Do we have to include them also in Europe?). Why Turkey waited over 60 years to become EU member and still waits? Turkey even started the negotiations together with Croatia in 2005 but Turkey is still out while Croatia is EU member from 2013. The answer is clear from the EU point of view: Croatia is Christian and geographically in Europe. For the EU the prolonged EU-Turkey negotiations are, unfortunately, only the tool for European economic and geopolitical domination/imperialism outside of the European continent. That is why I doubt that all these countries have anything to do with Europe. And even if we put them within the section of the European continent in Wikipedia the things will not change. Sprayitchyo (talk) 04:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia is mostly in Asia as well, but it doesn't stop Russia from being classified as a European country. The fact of the matter is, countries such as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey have every right to have the same classification standards applied to them. They have a geographic footing in Europe, which is more than enough for them to be classified with the rest of Europe. Secondly, especially when it comes to political matters, these countries are part of pan-European organizations, such as the Council of Europe. Their geopolitical and sociocultural orientations are aligned with Europe. There is nothing that states that you have to be Christian in order to be European or that your country's territory has to be mostly in Europe in order to be European. I dare say your comments sound rather xenophobic. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "They have a geographic footing in Europe." What about Armenia with 100% in Asia? "I dare say your comments sound rather xenophobic." To clarify, I am Maronite Christian, Lebanese, Mediterranean, and Middle Easterner. I do not thing that such "xenophobic" classification applies to anyone like me. I thing that you (see that you came from Kuwait-Iranian descent) have to understand the differences in sociocultural orientations between countries like Azerbaijan-Turkey and Europe. Please do not put them into one basket, Azerbaijan and Turkey are more close to Lebanon, for example, than to Europe. If you want to make Azerbaijan and Turkey European and from that Kuwait-Iran by cultural continuation European, then you put your own point of view. "The UN geoscheme shouldn't be used to classify the passports into different regions." Why not? It seems to me that you are making your own original research and try to put into Wikipedia. "Russia is mostly in Asia as well, but it doesn't stop Russia from being classified as a European country." I already answered that one. Russia, which is ethnically, religiously, and culturally European with the only negative issue that we can find is the geography, which is the result of the expansion of the Russian empire into the Asian continent. Russia has over 40% in Europe and less than 60% in Asia. In comparison, for example, Turkey has 3% in Europe and 97% in Asia. And the real xenophobic views are in EU. Repeat my comment from above again to read it: Why Turkey waited over 60 years to become EU member and still waits? Turkey even started the negotiations together with Croatia in 2005 but Turkey is still out while Croatia is EU member from 2013. The answer is clear from the EU point of view: Croatia is Christian and geographically in Europe. For the EU the prolonged EU-Turkey negotiations are, unfortunately, only the tool for European economic and geopolitical domination/imperialism outside of the European continent. Sprayitchyo (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia is ethnically, religiously and culturally European, yet Azerbaijan and Turkey aren't? And who gets to decide what nation is ethnically European and what nation isn't? You? And since when did Europe have an official religion? Now, I don't know about you, but your comments are a classic example of original research, if anything, so don't call the kettle black. I don't care about your background. You have expressed xenophobic statements by using religion as a means to classify whether a nation is European or not. The fact that Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey have a geographic footing in Europe makes them European by all accounts. And the fact that they are part of pan-European political bodies, which is very important in the case of this template, makes them European as well. I'm not going to bother answering your question about why Turkey still hasn't joined the European Union as it's clearly not relevant to this discussion. Furthermore, even if Turkey joins the EU this year, it probably still wouldn't stop you from thinking that Europe is supposed to be all Christian. I suppose we should place Albania and Bosnia in Asia given that they're not religiously European by your perverted definitions. Furthermore, given that you've tried to alter a template that has been perfectly fine for a long period of time, you should refrain from making your changes until you reach a consensus, otherwise your changes will simply be reverted as per BRD rules. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Russia is ethnically, religiously and culturally European, yet Azerbaijan and Turkey aren't?" Of course they are not. I am surprised that you did not know that. "I suppose we should place Albania and Bosnia in Asia." No way, they are European, mostly irreligious European people - Albania (70 % nominally Muslim, 30% nominally Christian) and Bosnia (55-60 % nominally Christian, 40-45% nominally Muslim). Very small number still keep the things (religion + customs) left by the Ottoman (Turkish) empire. I also know that Kuwait is well-known internationally to be socio-politically part of Europe and I even added it ;) Sprayitchyo (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent contribution to the article... 

message: I removed the use of 12 notes in what is just a navigation template, I would not expect a sizeable list of notes when just trying to find an article on my reasonable size monitor it takes up half the page when collapsed. I have been reverted as all these notes are needed to stop people moving countries around - I would have thought a better method than turning the template into a half page article could be found. MilborneOne (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Note Removal

message: why can't this template be just by continents -  Asia, Europe, North America, South America and Australia/Oceania. 
just write the country based on there geographical region instead of  an intergovernmental organisation
why it has to be by UN member states? its looks like more US member state template instead of passport template Muzi (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  why this template is so complicated