Template talk:Countries

Former
Anyone have a problem with the removing of "Former", as I have previously ranted on some talk page (United States, perhaps) that we don't actually have evidence certain countries stopped being countries. Also, we know several of these not to be "Former" and in fact still existing. US existed as of 2153 ("Afflicted", I believe) and US of Africa in the early 23rd century, and African Conferation early 24th century. "Earth Nation States" would be general but effective enough if you ask me. - AJ Halliwell 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I 100% agree. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, we know as of 2151 Earth had a world government under the name United Earth, so even though many of these countries might have continued to exist in some form even with their borders and some institutions intact, the definition of the term "nation state" no longer applies after that date. I suggest either entirely changing the title to something else, like for example "(former) Earth political entities", or just keeping the "former" after all.

A related issue (and the reason I came here in the first place) is the inclusion of the African Confederation, birthplace of Geordi and therefore supposedly still a devision of Earth in the 24th century. Besides the fact that it isn't a "former" nation state, it is unsure if it was ever a nation state at all. If the "Former" is removed, the AC should be removed also. If however something like my proposed title change comes trough, it could stay, but stuff like the European Aliance, European Hegemony and possibly even the Econ should be added.

Finaly, a note to AJ; I searched for your "rants" on this topic, but apart from a note on the fact that the usa continues to exist in the 24th century "at least in name", I coudn't find anything. However for future reference, the subject is touched upon in Talk:United States of America and Talk:France. - Capricorn 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Countries or nation states
Can we change this to Former Countries? When I click on Nation States in this template it redirects me to Countries so why not call it Former Countries? MJRivera 04:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it should go back to being Nation States instead of countries, since if memory serves "nation states" is more often used in canon, such as in . --OuroborosCobra talk 04:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it wasn't more often used in canon, it cropped up all of five times. On the whole, the "country" well over a dozen upwards to forty, without spending too much time sifting through the results. --Alan 05:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking Earth only references? --OuroborosCobra talk 05:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we should change to Former Earth Countries. Despite the Attached reference, the term 'nation state is incorrectly used in some of these cases (eg Great Britain, Switzerland, USSR). --- Jaz 05:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what it is named on the template. When it is clicked on, it should not redirect you to something else. What it is on the template should be the name of the article also or it is misleading calling it one thing and redirecting to another. --MJRivera 12:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

United States of Africa
Can we add this country in? It has never been mentioned in canon, but there is a huge amount of source material for it. Maybe write it like United States of Africa within the country template. For that matter, what about the African Confederation? -FC 04:19, December 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think 'no' mainly for the same reason that the European Union isn't considered a country. The United States of Africa may be more of a United Nations or something similar and without that source we can't say for certain. (and it's non-canon)&mdash; Morder (talk) 04:23, December 13, 2009 (UTC)

CSA
Should the Confederate States of America be removed from this template? We decided on its talk page to not call the Confederate States a "nation-state"(aka country). --31dot 19:53, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree, but only because I think the suggestion above to rename this "Earth political entities" is a better idea then removing topics that are at least related to the others, and this also takes care of the issue with using "former," which might not be true, and breaks POV anyways. - 20:22, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that idea. --31dot 20:32, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not me. "Earth political entities" strikes me as possibly an arbitrary or entirely made up name to use. This stuff was all originally at "nation states," which was used in canon. It was then changed to "countries," which was seemingly used in canon more often than "nation states." Was "political entities" ever used in canon? Was it used in the context of these countries? I could go with changing this to "Earth countries" or something, but I don't see the need to go to "Earth political entities," a made up term just to include the CSA. Perhaps the CSA could be listed separately within this template in such a way as to make clear that it isn't considered a recognized country? --OuroborosCobra talk 08:05, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that some supranational entities such as the European Hegemony were added to this template as well, accounting for the name change. Again, I feel that doesn't fit with what the role of this template is, and if anything makes finding information harder as national and non-national actors would now be mixed into a jumbled mess. It would seem to me that supranational entities either deserve their own template (with a name better than what I'm thinking of), or we need to create a new template that has sections for countries/nation-states, supranational entities, and non-recognized or limited recognized "countries." --OuroborosCobra talk 08:11, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that this one is pretty similar to the "Starbases" nav template that has recently been discussed. As in that case, it is somewhat unlikely that a reader would want to go from one "country article" to the other, the template is longer than the article content in at least some cases (and misleading in others: 8 of the links lead to Middle East instead of individual articles), and there's a category to replace it.
 * The template should be deprecated, and not be changed to include even more links. -- Cid Highwind 13:25, April 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * While I would say it's likely someone would want go from one country article to another, or at least significantly more likely then they would from one starbase to another, but if a good number of these don't even go to an article, and we already have the category, deprecating this might be the better option then reconfiguring it. - 15:07, April 20, 2011 (UTC)