I think I might be missing something obvious – apologies if so – but I'm wondering if there's any particular rationale for the "in" within these templates' names...?  (Meanwhile, they look very useful!)  Thanks for any pointers, David Kernow (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, they added "in [COUNTRY]" to the term, but they now allow "of [COUNTRY]", or any similar formulation. Other than that, just because it seemed easier to read. Warofdreams talk 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. How about a rename to {{Topic in-of Continent}} as this would reflect the order of Topic then Continent in these templates' names...?  Regards, David (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks also (even more) for correcting my misunderstanding re subheadings within these templates; my apologies for having created this work.

...Even simpler: {{Continent topic}} as parameter would supply the "in/of", e.g. {{Africa topic|Communications in}}. Regards, David (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with this change, if you feel it would be clearer. Warofdreams talk 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so – at least, each time I see this and its fellow templates' names, I pause a microsecond longer than usual...!  I've now posted pointers to my suggestion here on each templates' talk page; hopefully no-one picking them up will dislike the idea. Thanks, David (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at this, you will see that {{Oceania in topic}} could be combined with {{Oceania}} with very little effort. I would imagine other continents would work much the same. No worries then about arguing which countries to include then. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this can now be made to work relatively easily (before conditional logic was possible, the "the"s were a difficulty). It would avoid having two parallel templates, and would resolve the issue of two separate discussion on which nations should be included. Warofdreams talk 01:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it also works to render the previous thread obselete, great!  David Kernow (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]