ATTENTION This continent-topic template is transcluded onmultiple navigational templates. If there is a technical problem with aspecific transclusion (e.g., {{Topic of South America}}), it cannot be corrected here. See the template'sdocumentation for help with fixing a specific transclusion.
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related toSouth America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
Neat, yet some articles are "Topicof Country" wereas others are named "Topicin 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]
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 onTemplate:Africa_in_topic as that appears on very few pages at present.Warofdreamstalk12:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[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]
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 belowWarofdreamstalk14:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[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:
Is there any reason why Aruba is included, when it makes it clear in the articleSouth America that it is not normally regarded as part of the continent and the articleAruba is categorised inCategory:Central America rather thanCategory: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 withTrinidad 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]
Why isPanama 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.mijotoba19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[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 atfr: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?Warofdreamstalk00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[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]
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 likeLatin American art.Calliopejen1 (talk)16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[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]
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]
The title comes out asName of South America and notNames orNames 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 tochange the title only please help do so?Kpufferfish (talk)12:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[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]
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 getKingdom 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]
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]
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. TheCIA 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]
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]
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]
There is a specialsection 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]
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]
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]
Keeping the link red prevents aMOS: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]
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 theCulture of the Falkland Islands article. And while there is no "Architecture" section in theCulture 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 there11:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template-protected edit request on 11 December 2022
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono 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]
Not done: No changes are needed to this template, they were needed atWhaling in Chile andWhaling 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]
Hello, I need to edit this page because Panama isn't there on the South America template box. Panama is a transcontinental country bordering both continents.TheWiki93 (talk)14:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the{{Edit template-protected}} template. I have never heard of this idea. The article onPanama makes this claim without a reference to a reliable source. I just consulted myNational Geographic World Atlas (hardcover book,ISBN978-1-4263-0088-2), pages 62, 63, 73, 78, and 79. They clearly show Panama as being in North America, with the dividing line between the continents at the Panama–Colombia border. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. There was a time when the area of Panama south of the canal, to include Panama City, was considered to be in South America; however, that was long-ago changed to the NGWA description. That area, which now includes the entirety of the Republic of Panama, is now calledCentral America, which is a subregion of North America. See the navbar{{North America topic}}, where Panama is included.P.I. Ellsworth , ed.put'er there16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the{{Edit template-protected}} template. I do not see that guidance in OVERLINK. Can you please quote it? There is only one link in each group header, to explain terms that many readers might find unfamiliar. –Jonesey95 (talk)13:53, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded. I'd rather see links added to the headers at North America and the others, since the headers use technical terms that readers may not know. If another template editor wants to work on this, I have no objections. –Jonesey95 (talk)19:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION
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]
.svg)
Not done for now: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the