Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country subdivisions/Naming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What is english?

categorization moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming

I strongly disagree with these arbitrary characterizations. So some words derived from French are "100% English", but ones derived from other languages are not? Or is it that recently adopted English words are inferior to old ones? By this logic, we'd be moving Shah of Iran to King of Iran, and Dalai Lama to Pope of Tibet. —Michael Z. 2005-03-7 17:30 Z
was only a suggestion. Me neither I think this is very good. But the 100% English ones, are those that any english people would understand. I doubt that is the case with the last group. Shah and Dalai Lama would go in the middle group, I suppose. Tobias Conradi 19:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
English people can read (even Americans). That are what blue links for. You cannot reasonably translate krai without producing even more confusion. An official term is a term is a term. Mikkalai 20:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
when you wrote "Velayat (arabic)" this was a good example of a non arabic person who does not know how to handle the term exactly. In turc countries there are a lot of different spelling for this. An official term might be a term be a term be a term. But how do we translate it? If we do not want to translate it, well than we have to do a lot now :-) Look at the list, and which terms are used. Tobias Conradi 00:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of classifying "how English" the terms are? Many terms that don't apply to political entities in English-speaking countries are still English words. Excuse me for being so blunt, but it therefore seems that "less English" is a bogus classification meant to denigrate terms that appear to be of foreign origin.

"Common use in English"/"rarely used in English": on what basis are these classified? Can anyone cite a survey of how often these are used in English? Or are some simply more acceptable to your ears because they have the Anglo-Saxon or Romantic suffixes -ate, -ment, -ture, and -ship? —Michael Z. 2005-03-11 09:24 Z

I've taken the liberty of reducing the arbitrary evaluation of terms' Englishness on the project page. —Michael Z. 2005-03-11 09:32 Z


Old Discussion, moved from project discussion page

[edit] Tobias Conradi's comments

I made changes to names of subnational entities in Thailand and Ukraine and also changed some name in Netherlands and Argentina. Some user were angry about this, some only wondered what was my idea. Some, like the Ukrainian journalist even called me asshole. I was annoyed by different namings for subnational entities. They cause errors, e.g. red links somewhere while the article already exists. I invite all of you to help in finding a good solution for all subnational entities. Tobias Conradi 11:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • There is no good solution that will suit alll. Names are tradition. E.g., the word "region" means different things in different countries. What is more, in the U.S., the same thing is called differently, see county#United States.
All what you can unify is syntax of titles. Mikkalai 20:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the term region is quite unclear. Maybe we should avoid it in translations if another english term can be used. That in the US "same" things are named different would not cause harm. Because the other way around it is not clear what are the precise differences between the several english terms to describe subnational units. Tobias Conradi 01:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common differences

  1. lowercase / upercase
    1. lower Thailand:Chiang Mai province; Japan:Kanto region
    2. upper Japan: Mie Prefecture Hida Province; US: New York City (=local name [here it is part of the local name])
  2. local name / english name
    1. local Russia: Oblast
    2. english Thailand, Japan, Norway
    3. mixed Ukraine: partially romanized local name (oblast') and english name (region)
  3. brackets / non-brackets
    1. brackets Netherlands: Utrecht (province)
    2. non-brackets Thailand, Argentina, Japan, Russia (partially it is part of the local name, like Somename oblast)
  4. leading / trailing
    1. leading Ireland:County Dublin; Lake Huron (=local name,not entity), Mount Somename (not entity)
    2. many others: Somename Entity;Great Salt Lake (=local name), Congo River, Somename Range|Peak|River (not entity)

interlingual differences (not to solve here! but as hint what exists) de:Chiang Mai (Provinz), fr:Province de Chiang Mai, ms:Wilayah Chiang Mai, nl:Changwat Chiang Mai, no:Chiang Mai (provins), fi:Chiang Mai

Ukrainian oblast names are all strictly romanized according to the National System. I think there are some historic regions that use other naming conventions, which are not modern political entities and whose geographic bounds are not strictly defined. I don't think they apply here. The only one I can find at the moment is Zaporizhzhia (region). —Michael Z. 2005-03-7 16:46 Z


[edit] Current use

[edit] Discussions

[edit] Umbrella terms

Following encompassing terms exist (the articles need to be improved to show relations between these terms!)

all in plural and singular.


[edit] Sections in country articles

some have the following section:

  • Administrative division
  • Political division
  • Subdivision

[edit] Setpages

  • Administrative division(s) of
  • Political division(s) of
  • Subdivision(s) of

[edit] Categories

A lot are in Category:Subdivisions by country and have Category:Subdivisions of Yland. A lot of the specific sets are at Category:Provinces, Category:Counties etc.

[edit] Lists

[edit] Projects

  • some projects use the term subdivision
    • Ukrainian subdivisions
    • UK subdivisions (with it's first order descendents using the term too)

[edit] Specific sets

  • Counties:
For NL it's only a historical term (Holland, Zeeland, Zutphen). For Latvia I thought district was the preferred term (it's rajons in Latvian). BTW, Markusse is my last name, first name Peter. Markussep 15:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully I will not call Peter with Markus again. Subdivisions_of_Russia#Translation Raion as district is not generelly feasible because okrugs are allready translated as districts. I started Counties of the Netherlands Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
No offence ;-) Actually, this counties of the Netherlands page you made is not necessary. There were some counties (and duchies, bishoprics etc.) in the current Netherlands (and Belgium, France, Germany, Italy etc. etc.) when it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, see also Seventeen Provinces. About Latvia: if there are no okrugs in Latvia I don't see objections against district. But I don't know. Markussep 21:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other

[edit] NoPuzzleStranger vs. Tobias Conradi

  1. N:...
    1. [1]
    2. summary:(it's only "current use" because of Tobias Conradi's unilateral crusade)
  2. N:This is only current use (and that only because TobiasConradi unilaterally moved hundreds of pages) and not any policy at all.
    1. [2]
    2. summary:none
  3. T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says TobiasConradi unilaterally moved hundreds of pages. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally (defintion needed) moved by Tobias Conradi, those moved by others and those that were not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages.
    1. [3]
    2. summary:(→Current use -correct NoPuzzleStranger's statement)
  4. N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to his "X Province"-type format. User:Tobias Conradi responds that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others and those that were not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages.
    1. [4]
    2. summary:none
  5. T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X".
    1. [5]
    2. summary:(→Current use - extend intro)
  6. N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Tobias Conradi responds that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others, those that were already in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. NoPuzzleStranger responds that anyone doubting his contention should just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by none other than Tobias Conradi. It is in any case uncontested by Tobias Conradi himself that he moved "a lot of pages".
    1. [6]
    2. summary:none
  7. T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". Furthermore NoPuzzleStranger things instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. This however would not show unilaterelity.
    1. [7]
    2. summary:(==current use==extend intro, missing stats are not a claim, but a fact.)
    3. Furthermore adding:
      1. pages that were not moved in 2005 may be marked: [not moved in 2005]
      2. pages that were moved may be marked: [moved by User 2005-month-day]
    4. then Tobias starts to collect data about move history
  8. N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Tobias Conradi complains that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is however uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". NoPuzzleStranger thinks instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. Tobias Conradi contends that this however would not show unilaterality. However, the talk page of this very page contains numerous complaints by people about unilateral moves by Tobias Conradi.
    1. [8]
    2. summary:none
  9. T:Revert
    1. [9]
    2. summary: (→Current use - remove last statement of NoPuzzleStrange - Tobias was not complaining about anything)
  10. T:complains at User_talk:NoPuzzleStranger, about his lies and misrepresentations
  11. N:Revert
    1. [10]
    2. summary:(rv, if you don't want to complain, then remove your statement entirely, because it's otherwise irrelevant)
  12. T:Revert
    1. [11]
    2. summary:(rv, because User:NoPuzzleStranger is lying and misrepresenting)
  13. T: adding with typo
    1. [12]
    2. summary: (→Current use - He also claims the talk page of this project page would show unilateral moves. It is uncontested that unlateral were done by Tobias.)
  14. T:correct last typo, now: User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". --------------- Furthermore NoPuzzleStranger thinks instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. This however would not show unilaterelity. He also claims the talk page of this project page would show unilateral moves. It is uncontested that unilateral move were done by Tobias.
    1. [13]
    2. summary:(→Current use - typo)
  15. N:looks like revert? ##[14]
    1. summary:none
  16. T:Revert
    1. summary:(rv, this is not the talk page. Things like "he responds" do not belong here. BTW: existense of some conflicts on the talk page, does not show what you claimed. Look at number of sets. this is bigger)
  17. N:Revert
    1. summary:(rv, you started responding that way, and you started putting up names; if you want to write that I "claim", then I can also write you "respond")
  18. T:Revert
    1. summary: (rv, state facts write like in encyclopedia, not talk style, do not misrepresent. I have no problem to see my name.)
  19. N:looks like revert?
    1. summary:(then what's your problem? what is misrepresented? those are all facts)
  20. Tobias now responds here: My problems are your lies and misrepresentations. It is not very helpfull to write "Tobias responds". When I wrote NoPuzzleStranger claims than it was because it was just a claim of you. At first I thought about "someone people claim" but it was only you, so I thought its helpful to the reader who said this. You are a lier or have bad memory. I was not the one that started putting up names as you said. It was YOU. There was a claim, I did not just want to delete it, I had no problem to see my name. But I did not like the misrepresentation in your first statement. That's why I called it claim. And than I added the fact that there where no statistics for what you claimed. I thought you might add them. But instead you wrote this "Tobias responds style" and write it is enought to check randomly Whatlinkshere-pages. I left this because that's a good hint for the reader. I also added that it is uncontested that I moved lots of page and that unilateral moves by me happenend. But remember what you wrote? You wrote: Tobias unilaterally moved hundred maybe thousand pages. That's a different thing, afaik that's misrepresentation. You still not provided statistics for this, while I did a lot of work to provide some stats. Now you wrote unilateral acts can be deducted from the talk page. Yes there where complaints about moves. Yes there where unilateral moves. This is uncontested. But did you see the number of moves without complaints? Did you see the pages that where not moved at all? Did you see where from some of these page where moved? You were trying to discredit User:Tobias Conradi, with lies (maybe bad memory) and misrepresentation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What I meant with "you started putting up names" was that you started attributing statements to people, i.e. that I "claim" that you moved those pages. Of course in saying that you moved those pages I mentioned your name first. And if you write I "claim", I can likewise write you "respond". That I did not put up any statistics is self-evident, so if you want to specifically note that fact it implies a significance which is POV and therefore needs to be attributed. The lack of statistics doesn't change the truth that you unilaterally moved hundreds or thousands of pages - how on Earth is that a misrepresentation? Shall we actually count the moves in your contribution history? And the number of moves without complaints is irrelevant. There have been enough complaints to make it clear that you acted inappropriately in trying to push through your preferred format without establishing a consensus for it first. NoPuzzleStranger 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should I have written "someone claims" instead "NoPuzzleStranger claims"? That I responded is irrelevant because it is NPOV (if such things exist). YES we should count. Because I do not believe in your claims. In opposite to you I do not say they are wrong. I will only call them this way if I have statistics. I already started in adding move infos. You say "There have been enough complaints to make it clear that you acted inappropriately in trying to push through your preferred format without establishing a consensus for it first." I never said that I did not move unilateral. Why do you state this again? But let's have a look at the talk page, because you indirectly said there is connection between the current use unilateral achieved by moves of Tobias and the complains at the talk page.

  1. Ukraine (~25 of 50): "Kirovohrads'ka oblast'" to "Kirovohrad Province". Yes this was unilateral. I was bold. On the pages it said: English recommended (informal use): province so I made it english. AFAIR the naming was also little inconsistent on different pages. Someone called me asshole because I did not revert immediatly after he requested this (I thought I cannot if there is a redirect). I did not touch it anymore. RESULT: they reverted, but in the meantime someone else moved all to "Kirovohrad Oblast"-format.
  2. Netherland: (1? move) "Utrecht (province)" to "Utrecht Province", someone kindly asked me why. RESULT Now it is at the old place.
  3. Mexico (BTW, for some of the states I once was the first to set up stubs, ohoh I was blocked for that and people wondered whether I was a robot): Nice talk with Hajor about naming. RESULT: no moves (actually AFAIK all go by "X")
  4. Switzerland: Docu asked me whether I plan to move cantons. I said they are ok. Did not touch them.
  5. Croatia: I unilateraly moved them. I think "X county" was very rare. This was (unilateraly) reverted. RESULT: I left them for a while. But I came back, reverting the revert. After complain halted in the middle. Things are still in discussion.
  6. Peru: moved regions, after question by one user, I said I was sorry for not asking. Long discussion. revert. Later long disussion with the main contributer again this time about provinces. RESULT: he allowed the move.
  7. Chile (regions): I met someone who wanted the same :-) after some moving between different naming variants this is now stable. The stuff also went through WP:RM.
  8. Russia, long talk with someone much involved. He was neutral. Then I just did it (50%) "X Oblast" to "X Province". Stuff was reverted. RESULT "X Oblast"
  9. Lithuania: just a discussion. in fact this started because someone moved all from "X County" to "X Apskritis" and someone else shared my view this might be not desirable.

Now: You said the current use (of X Entity, I assume) is so because I "unilateraly moved hundreds or thousands." I pointed out missing stats. You responded one could just check randomly some "X Entity". I pointed out this would not show unilateral acts. You say unilaterality is shown buy this talk page. I conclude you think If one checks a random "X Entity", then this talk page should show unilaterality for this move? I think this is impossible, because all what I moved to "X English" and is dealed with at this talk page was either reverted (Russia, Ukraine both "X Oblast") or went through by long discussion and WP:RM (Chile, Peru). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization and standards

I'm about to start a personal project on many of the subdivision pages, so I wanted to ask two questions:

  1. Why is the standard X Province, etc., when we don't expect the same for western countries? Tobias didn't move Texas to Texas State, nor did he move British Columbia to British Columbia Province. Why not?
    1. Because "X Province" is mostly used for disambiguation.Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      1. Then why not Georgia State? ... heh, that has its own disambig issues. OK, fair enough. --Golbez 19:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
        1. Georgia State would not be sufficient. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Should province, region, etc. always be lowercased unless it's part of the official name of the province, and where is a resource to find out which nations this applies to? --Golbez 07:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
    1. I think in nearly all spanish speaking countries words like provincia, departamento, région (partially) etc are part of the official name. So your sugestion would imply uppercase for them.
      Perhaps. Where do you learn this, though? --Golbez 19:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      what do I learn? If you refer to official names use WP or Google. If you refer to the implication, see your post from 07:16, July 15. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      I mean, where does one find out if the proper form is capitalized or not. Google tends to be case-insensitive, though there's probably a way to force it. --Golbez 21:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
      I was not refering to Google tests, but to google for official pages.
In most languages I know (except English) the generic name (région, provincie, oblast) is lower case, if they're used at all. The exception is German, but all nouns get upper case in German. There have been some (fierce) discussions about upper and lower case, see above for instance. Same discussion has been going on for rivers, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Markussep 19:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I know there's been fierce discussion, mostly involving Tobias brute-forcing his changes, and calling anyone who disagrees "stupid" (see Provinces of Italy, I think). But then everything went quiet a month or two ago, so I'm wondering what's going on. Thanks for the lower case bit. --Golbez 20:30, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
please tell me where I called someone stupid only because he disagrees with me. Thanks for your help. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Right here. --Golbez 19:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
"even if I think this quick poll is stupid" - what I called stupid was the poll. You may read more carefully. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I can read perfectly fine. You were criticizing the poll because it went against your idea. --Golbez 21:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
If you can read so fine why do say: calling anyone who disagrees "stupid" I think your logic of what the term who designates is different to mine. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Golbez, please make a complete suggestion of what you think is a good way to handle all subnational entities. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The best way to do it is to have a basic international standard for the list pages - "X of Y" "Oblasts of Bulgaria" "Regions of Peru", "Administrative divisions of Azerbaijan", etc., and we have that. The second step is to make every country's divisions standard within the context of that country. Not every country is the same, and you're trying to shoehorn that in, with your only motivation being "global standardization". There isn't a global standard. Period. Some areas, the "Province" is part of the name - in others, it's not. In North America, "province" or "state" is never part of the short name, and thus, should never be capitalized in short form. (Long form is okay - "Province of British Columbia" or "Commonwealth of Virginia", but never "Virginia State") If you took your international standards to their logical conclusion, this would be required. There is no international standard. Every country is different. You don't seem to realize that, and you talk past or talk down anyone who tries to point this out. I've been watching this for a while, please show me if I've been misled by my eyes. When you capitalize it, you're making it part of a name, which is incorrect in many cases - like saying "Georgia State" instead of "Georgia (U.S. state)". Local usage matters - even in the English wikipedia. You need to understand this. Just because this is the english pedia doesn't mean we ignore local standards, especially when those standards are spoken out in English by the appropriate governments. --Golbez 19:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks to some Wikipedians we now have such a list, you are right. And thanks to standardization disambiguations and wrong links were resolved. As far as I can see your suggestion is incomplete, because you did not set up rules for the countries. I still do not get what you want. Maybe you can fill in the following:
  1. X Province - apply if (or avoid) ...
  2. X - apply if (or avoid)...
  3. X province - apply if (or avoid)...
  4. X (province)- apply if (or avoid)...
  5. Province of X - apply if (or avoid)...
  6. X (somelandian province) - apply if (or avoid)...
  7. X (province of Someland)- apply if (or avoid)...
  8. X (Someland) - apply if (or avoid)...
  9. Someland, X Province - apply if (or avoid)...
  10. X Province of Someland - apply if (or avoid)...
  11. Province X - apply if (or avoid)...

Let apskritys stand for a term not common in english

  1. X Apskritys - apply if (or avoid) ...
  2. X apskritys - apply if (or avoid)...
  3. X (apskritys)- apply if (or avoid)...
  4. Apskritys of X - apply if (or avoid)...
  5. X (somelandian Apskritys) - apply if (or avoid)...
  6. X (apskritys of Someland)- apply if (or avoid)...
  7. X (Someland) - apply if (or avoid)...
  8. Someland, X Apskritys - apply if (or avoid)...
  9. X Apskritys of Someland - apply if (or avoid)...
  10. Apskritys X - apply if (or avoid)...
The rules for the countries is up to each individual country. Some use some formats, some use another. America and Canada use "X", I believe Azerbaijan uses "X rayon" and "X sahar", but I could be wrong; England uses "X", Ireland uses "County X", Japan can use "X" or "X prefecture" or maybe even "X Prefecture" - I honestly don't know off the top of my head, and that's my point. There's no point in shoehorning every country into a global "English" standard. You goal has - apparently - been to push everything towards "X Province/Apskritys". If you have moved any articles contrary to this apparent goal, please point them out and prove me wrong.
Japan had X Prefecture, until you "unilateral" -whatever this is- moved Hokkaido Prefecture to Hokkaido. Don't be shy, you know exactly about Japan Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Hokkaido redirected to Hokkaido Prefecture, and since "do" means prefecture (There IS some about Japan I know), it was not only redundant, but over-long. You may note I didn't touch any of the other prefectures, nor did I look at them. --Golbez 21:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know all of the rules offhand, but I do know that there has been considerable resistance to your hunt for a global standard on some pages, like Italy and Peru. There's no need to fill in the above, if you think we do then you don't understand my argument yet. An example: You moved São Paulo (state) to São Paulo State, which has since been rightly moved to São Paulo.
considerable? Do you have stats for this? How many were touched, how many had resistance? And how many were done by others? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I do appreciate the work you're doing in standardizing the list page names and such, don't get me wrong; but from what I've seen - again, correct me if I'm wrong - you've been trying to unilaterally place a single standard on all countries, and that just isn't right. --Golbez 21:15, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I tried to improve WP and reduce from 15 or so naming variants to some fewer. I do not know why you make it down to personal level. Have fun. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Because maybe there are supposed to be 15 naming variants! Why can't you understand that!? Yes, maybe some were done in error in the past - but that doesn't mean all were. --Golbez 21:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
there are supposed to be 15 naming variants - might be right, might be wrong. might be good, might be bad. might help, might cause anger. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you're saying here. Surely you agree that there is not one standard - but how many are there? Of the 193 independent nations in the world, give or take depending on your politics, how many different standards are there? --Golbez 22:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Standards and naming variants are two different things. I would prefer to talk about naming variants. Depending on how one designs a standard it can include one or 1000 naming variants. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Related discussion

Please see also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). Let's get this resolved once and for all. –Hajor 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Categories

Hey all,

A discussion has erupted at Categoreis for deletion here, about the naming of the categories on administrative/political divisions within sovereign states. It will probably have some repurcussions on this page, so feel free to join in.

Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

strong disagree. this discussion should not take place on a CfD page. But should take place here at the project. It's not only about the categories but article pages etc. too. see #Umbrella terms Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have started a thread on renaming the categories on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. Lets discuss renaming the categories there, we can do the rest later if necessary. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Subdivisions of C" articles

I'm aware something like this query has been raised before, but I'd appreciate some idea of current thinking – thanks!

I've been passing by many if not most of these articles recently and it's occurred to me that the format "Subdivisions of C" (where C = a country) is insufficient:

  1. It doesn't indicate what kind of "subdivisions" are addressed, i.e. whether they are:
    1. Administrative
    2. Political
    3. Electoral
    4. Census
    5. Developmental
    6. Environmental
    7. etc, etc, etc.
  2. "Subdivisions of C" might suggest that C is already a division of something else; but if C is a country, the only area it might be a division of is a continent...?  It would seem, therefore, that "T divisions of C" (where T = a type of division, C = a country) would be a more suitable format, i.e. as in "Administrative divisions of Fooland", "Political and electoral divisions of Baristan", "Environmental divisions of Fooia", "Administrative and censual divisions of the Bar Republic", etc. On the other hand, I note the book referenced at Statoids is entitled Administrative Subdivisions...

Thoughts, anyone?  Thanks, David Kernow 00:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's possible to unambiguously define "T division", I'm all for this proposal, because "T division" is bound to be more precise and not as generic. "Subdivisions" should probably stay in cases when articles describe more than one type of "T divisions" (such as Subdivisions of Russia), or when "T divisions" are hard to define using other English terms (can't think of an example now). As for item #2, I don't really see a problem. The term "subdivisions" does not necessarily imply that something is a "subdivision of a higher level division", it can just as well mean that a country as a whole is subdivided into smaller units.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Divisions of Foo conflicts in cases where they are or were a special entity. Pakistan, India, Burma ... some more. Can't point you to a cat, because they allways get deleted in Divisions cat, since the militay people think their military divisions are more important. For me there is also a subtle diff between saying the country is divided and the country is subdivided. But I also see that sub has kind of hierarchy in it. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Divisions of Foo conflicts in cases where they are or were a special entity—true, but divisions proper (as in "Divisions of Foo") and "T divisions" are not the same thing, are they?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Since it seems there are fewer administrative units translated as "subdivision"s than there are translated as "division"s, it looks as if "T subdivisions of C" (as in "Administrative subdivisions of Fooland", etc) is the format to use...?  However, I suspect that there might be folk who'd react to a review and renaming of "Subdivisions of C" articles and who aren't aware of the discussion here; if so, hopefully you know better than I where they might be contacted so they could contribute here...?  Thanks, David 15:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, there are many articles on countries that carry an "Administrative divisions" section; also, I see that there is an Administrative division article but not an Administrative subdivision article and that many related templates appear to use "Administrative divisions" in their titles. (Anyone else here?)  David 19:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So basically, you're asking if "subdivisions" is a poor term? OK, I'll agree. --Golbez 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast!  So, to confirm, you'd go with "division" and "divisions"...?  David 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I think. I can't see any reason, off-hand, why it would be bad. --Golbez 23:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Golbez: "Divisions" is too generic. There needs to be a qualifier. So yes, "administrative divisions" is the next best thing. However, if they have names, then use those - states of, provinces of, with 'administrative divisions of' being kind of an umbrella article, if needed. (Also, for things like Azerbaijan which has two types of top-level divisions, 'administrative divisions of azerbaijan' would be the best option, with perhaps a later article about the structure, powers, etc. of rayons, sahars, etc).

This is also my thinking as a result of looking over this area. If/when you have a moment, you might like to scan this and this; both nearly ready to debut in the encyclopedia – with, I think, amended titles!  Yours, David 23:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The second one looks interesting, the first one I'm not sure. Tobias has a similar article already (I can't recall where, sorry), and it seems like it's combining too much information. Having that information in each country's article might be worth it, but all of them combined? I dunno. Then again, it is heavily sourced and it appears accurate (except for a lot of +s) and so it could be good. OK, I like it. --Golbez 23:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Too much information: Would you say this is in terms of the length of the table (i.e. perhaps break it up into separate tables in separate articles, one for each continent?) or the width of the table (i.e. include fewer administrative levels) – or both?  If it's the width, I'm not sure how to make anything other than an abitrary cut-off point, something I wouldn't be keen on...
Accurate (except for a lot of +s): You may've already spotted it, but the rationale for the "+"s is given in the notes.
Thanks for your speedy and useful feedback!  David 23:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is something quite hard to discuss because there are so many variations of a country's divisions. But I have seen your work, David, and I think that you really have a voice in this matter and the capability to establish some standards for these divisions, as well as sorting them in the best possible way. Maybe all those "Subdivisions of C" articles require an extensive explanation of all the divisions existent in C as first thing on the article. Or even maybe that should be the only information contained in those articles, along with links to the divisions described. But, well, then that would result in an explosion of rather small articles. Yeah, this is complex alright. But I trust your guidance to the perfect solution. By the way, I also think that it's not a bad idea to get rid of the "subdivisions" and replace them with just "divisions". Regards. --Húsönd 23:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks to you too, Húsönd, for a prompt response. (Note to self: I am finding people online on a Sunday evening/night!)  And thanks also for your vote of confidence – what gives me the most confidence is when folk such as yourself, Golbez and all above indicate I might not necessarily prompt an outcry when I come to review, reorder, rename these articles. I'll try to remember to include a link back to here in the edit/move summaries as/when I (try to) make them. Looks like "X division/s" (where X = administrative, political, electoral, etc.) may be the consensus here after all, and/or general "Divisions of Country". Best wishes, David 23:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, a link to this discussion should prevent any conflicts. Although I don't think that you would find much opposition with the needed changes. Your extensive research is scary enough to dissuade any opponents. :-) Regards. --Húsönd 00:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

How annoying. All these mass moves of the Subdivisions of X articles. This is a mess. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It'll take a little while to sort out the above as there are many pages to update – apologies for the inconvenience!  Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't "update" more right now. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure; I was merely beginning to implement the consensus above...?  Has something crucial changed...?  David (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly I have not been part of this consensus. I was disruptivly blocked for one week by some policy violation defending admins and seems I missed this in my watchlist then, after I was free again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!  As you know, I appreciate the input and scrutiny you provide and have begun to provide below and elsewhere, so please continue; some details may be incorrect, but hopefully you agree with the consensus that's been found. Yours, David (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India

The administrative divisions of India as opposed to the military divisions, are one kind of subdivisions of India. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes; as discussed above, the intention is to create a "master" article Subdivisions of India, to which Administrative divisions of India ("administrative division" ≠ the Indian administrative division known as a "division"), Military divisions of India, Electoral divisions of India (possibly) etc are linked. Similarly for other countries. Hope this okay...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Hierarchy)

To have "Administrative divisions" on two levels is IMO not very good.

  • Subdivisions of India
    • Administrative (you suggest Administrative divisions)
      • States
      • Territorries
      • (Administrative) divisions
    • Electoral
    • ...

The "military divisions" per Division (military) are not part of this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you might've misunderstood my use of "administrative division"; apologies if it's not been clear. No country, so far as I've found, uses "administrative division" (or its translation) as a label for one of its national administrative divisions; the closest approach, I believe, is India with its "divisions". As regards the general case (starting from "Subdivisions of X"), I'd say the structure resembles:
  • Subdivisions of X
    • Administrative divisions of X
      • first (top) level : many possibilities (States of X / Provinces of X / Counties of X / etc etc)
      • second level : many possibilities (Counties of X / Districts of X / Communes of X / etc etc)
      • third level : many possibilities (Communes of X / Districts of X / Municipalities of X / etc etc)
      • fourth level : many possibilities (Communes of X / Municipalities of X / Villages of X / etc etc)
    • Electoral divisions of X
      • Not yet researched (apart from "Constituencies of X" – yes, with exception of Namibia)
    • Developmental divisions (regions?) of X...?
      • Not yet researched
    • Ecological divisions (areas?) of X...?
      • Not yet researched
    • etc etc

Yours, David (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Country subdivision

Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC) further reading: Country subdivision. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added a thread to the talk page there. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Autonomous entity/area" / Generic terms

I disagree with move Autonomous entity -> Autonomous area.

above you want "division" to be the top level. Here you want area. Area sometimes is one type already. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not to be clearer; I don't think any one term / "entity" / type of national admin division is top-level. If "autonomous area" is already being used by a country to describe one of its admin divisions, I must've overlooked it – apologies! – please indicate where so I may update various locations accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not say that "autonomous area" is used allready. I was only talking about "Area". If Area shall be top here, then why don't use Administrative area, Elecoral area etc. I started Area (subnational entity), help welcome. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay; I think I understand. My suggestion is that unlike "Local Government Area", "insular area", etc, "autonomous area" is not used by any country to identify any of its types of administrative division – so far as I'm aware! – so it's free to be used generically as above. Regards, David (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
this is exactly what i dont like. We should use one "topterm". And "Autonomous topterm" would then be the topterm for the autonomous administrative territorial units. According to how we used it before, this would be "Autonomous (country) subdivisions". Or like you did it "Autonomous administrative divisions". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, if not "autonomous area" due to Area (subnational entity); and not "autonomous entity" – or "[anything] entity" – as this is too abstracted (e.g. I'd like to think I'm an "autonomous entity" (!); alternatively, a company could be a "subnational entity"), then is there another term that could be used...?  Thanks, David (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
...I suppose "autonomous division" could be used as a foreshortened form of "autonomous administrative division" (India et al notwithstanding); and "subnational division" rather than "subnational entity"...?  David (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
pls read #Umbrella_terms -> subnational. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Taken another look, but am still not convinced by "political division" (e.g. its article has no sources/references; this time I've remembered to add {{references}}!) and "subnational entity" (still) redirects to "administrative division", i.e. there's nothing in the article to indicate that "subnational entity" should be a preferred term...?  Yours, David (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced from pol div article neither. And subnat entity should be explained better / made a seperate article / a dab. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My concern, however, is that "subnational entity" is too abstracted for the sake of a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia; there may be a significant minority of people who might think it refers to companies, organiz/sations etc, rather than to administrative divisions. My continued thanks for your feedback, David (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
yes entity can have really have other meanings. so does area. In the area of biology .... But Autonomous area could be ok, if standing alone. BTW, we should look how we integrate with things like continents and supra country regions, Balkans, EU, Brit. Commonwealth. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Re integrating continents etc: not yet, please – I'd first like to sort out / understand terms!  What is the use of "area" in biology that you have in mind...?  (Does it identify some kind of space or region, even if metaphorical?  Unlike "area", "entity" does not necessarily imply a space or region...)  Yours, David (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
not: areas in biology, but: biology is one area/field, like chemistry. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, understood; thanks. Well, I'd say "area" in "autonomous area" implies space or region far more strongly than "entity" in "autonomous entity"... Yours, David (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


"Autonomous division"...?  David Kernow (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, one quick thing, I don't want to suddenly jump in and disrupt this discussion but I just wanted to make sure you were all aware that certain Indian states actually use Sub-Division as an administrative unit (and it is different from Division - Divisions contain Districts, Districts contain Sub-Divisions). It is pretty insane on India's part. Here's an example where Sub-Divisions (here spelt "Sub Divisions") are used (this is a government site): [15]. Anyway, I'm sure you guys will figure out how to resolve all this, I do think it would be nice to not have duplicated information scattered over too many articles, creating a mess to keep synchronized. All important info on a topic should be in one article and any articles that reference it should keep their descriptions brief and provide a link to the main article. But this is just my opinion, you guys have been thinking hard about this and I'm sure you will come up with a good way of handling this type of thing. Best! 134.174.21.2 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this info! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded (with added "Arrg!")  Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category renamings

from User_talk:Tobias Conradi Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tobias,
If I have your blessing (in general) for the current state of Country subdivision, I'd like to forge on with sorting out country subdivisions across Wikipedia by reintroducing the following modified WP:CfD proposals:

[edit] Category:Nth-order/level administrative divisions

[NB "national administrative division" no longer proposed]

Category:First-order administrative divisions to Category:First-level administrative divisions
Category:Second-order administrative divisions to Category:Second-level administrative divisions
Category:3rd-level administrative divisions to Category:Third-level administrative divisions
Category:4th-level administrative divisions to Category:Fourth-level administrative divisions
Rationale: These structures most commonly referred to as "levels"; see the various articles/templates on countries' administrative divisions.
These categories are due to be populated further.

[edit] Category:Subnational entities

and subcategories listed below

Category:Subnational entities to Category:Country subdivisons
Rationale: A "subnational entity" might be something such as a company, organiz/sation etc; suggest "subnational division" gives clearer indication as to category's contents and subject area.

Similarly,

Category:Lists of subnational entities to Category:Lists of country subdivisions
Category:Ranked lists of subnational entities to Category:Ranked lists of country subdivisions
Category:Subnational entities in Europe to Category:Country subdivisions of Europe
Category:Subnational entities in the Americas to Category:Country subdivisions of the Americas

Also,

Category:Subdivisions of historic countries to Category:Subdivisions of former countries and empires
Rationale: Describes contents more accurately.

Yes, I aim to replace "subnational entity/ies" in article titles with "country division/s" or similar rephrasings; it's all part of a push via WP:WPCSub to clarify the distinctions between and nomenclature used for this topic.

Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

looks all very good. AFAICS each rename will increase consistency. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry not to see your reply until now – somehow I missed your editing this page and your talk page in order to transfer it!  Glad you agree this is a step forward in consistency; I'll now copy the above to CfD. Yours, David (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_12#Category:Nth-order.2Flevel_administrative_divisions

pls dont put the word national in. that other folks didnt mind is another thing. they are not into it so much. I am happy to get rid of "subnational" and then "national" invades again via another door. CN and RU of have nation (nationality) based subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tobias,

pls dont put the word national in...

First, my apologies that I forgot to remove "national" from those proposals when I pasted them back into CfD. However, I'm now glad I did forget, as I think the category names need to indicate what kind of administrative divisions they contain. Yes, we and other folk involved in country subdivisions might think 'Well, what else could they be?!' but I can recall when my attention was first drawn to this topic and it wasn't at all obvious. But what I don't properly understand is the strength of your dislike for the word "national"; I realise it's used as the adjective for "nation" as well as "country", but I don't see how that's a big problem. If you can indicate why it is – is it something I've missed, some potential clash within category names further along the path...? – then I'll happily withdraw/revise the proposals. In fact, I want to know about anything I've missed, for, as we know, it takes time to amend features such as category names etc!  So please let me know why "national" is a big problem – thanks.

CN and RU of nation based subdivisions...

I don't understand this – sorry if I'm being slow...

Best wishes and thanks for your patience, David Kernow (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

...Just seen that the CfD nomination has been closed and the categories moved. Per the above, if you indicate why "national" is a major problem, I'll happily renominate/support their renomination. David (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

CN and RU of have nation (nationality) based subdivisions.

Hope I'm correct to read your amendment above to mean the problem you see is with the republics and other ethnically-based subdivisions of Russia and the autonomous areas of China...? If so, I don't think it is a major problem; I reckon the majority of English speakers use "national" to mean "of a country" before "of a nation", even though "national" derives from "of a nation". I realise, though, that this is just my guess, so perhaps a poll somewhere to find out whether or not this is likely might be useful...?  In any case, one or more notes could be added to the relevant Russian and Chinese categories in order to minimiz/se the chances of misunderstanding...?  Yours, David (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

...How about "administrative divisions of countries" in place of "national administrative divisions" (e.g. N-th level administrative divisions of countries, etc)...?  David (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"administrative country subdivisions" - would fit the best in the current naming scheme. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tobias; this idea might be the best yet...!   "Administrative country subdivision", "Statistical country subdivsion" (including census), "Judicial country subdivision" etc all (1) use the root term "country subdivision" and (2) don't include that word "national"...
For the sake of expediency, I'm tempted to message those folk who supported the CfD and ask if they'd accept "...national administrative divisions" → "...administrative country subdivisions" per here...
Meanwhile, I could begin amending instances of "administrative division", "statistical division" etc...?
There's long been a little thought in the back of my mind that there's a more effective phrase "national X division/s"; I think you may've found it!   Hopefully, David Kernow (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
...Second thoughts; "administrative country subdivision" is a more cumbersome phrase and also perhaps WP:OR...?  Many articles etc already use "administrative division" (i.e. "X division") so perhaps that ought to be retained and the associated categories named "First-level administrative divisions of countries", etc. I hope you agree. Yours, David (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
agree. It's difficult. Yes, it's more consistent, same root, but maybe never used before. Not sure whether WP:OR forbids joining three words. ;-) I suggest, don't message the other people now. I lately saw "geographic unit" somewhere. Sounds quite neutral. But for now I would not like to change so much. We have high consistency now. Some "subnational entity" articles can be moved to "country subdivision". Lists and matrix. After that let's see what is the "most urgent" next. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You may've seen "geographic unit" at Census geographic units of Canada...?  Unfortunately, however, I'd say using this phrase as a general term is probably also original research. But yes, I see the other "country subdivision" category amendments have been propogated, so I'll start following these up. Yours, David (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Country_subdivisions_Naming_1263.html"