Talk:Country subdivision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Category naming 1.1 Borders 2 A subdivision is not necessarily a sub-unit to a division 3 The term "country subdivision" 4 Moving discussion 5 Opening two paragraphs 6 "Subnational entity" 6.1 Hierarchy

[edit] Category naming

User:William Allen Simpson proposed to rename all categories that contain the term subdivision. He wants to split the categories into Political divisions of Foo and Administrative divisions of Foo. But this would leave out some areas that are not administrative or political used at all, e.g. regions created by national statistics offices, e.g. regions of Brazil. Some of his proposals for category renaming are at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4. In a related discussion he says

Some German speaker with poor English skills has corrupted the correct "Administrative Divisions" into "Subdivisions" Needless to say, the categories are not about platting. [1]

text below by Carlos is copied from my talk page. I think it's good to concentrate the discussion somewhere. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tobias, thanks for your message. The problem I have with the proposal -- which seems to be a bigger can of worms than at first appears -- is that some subdivisions have "legal" (defined or recognized political power or center of authority) status while others are merely historical, geographical, or reflect someone's wish list. Let me make an example: The regions of France, have at various times had legal status at others not, and their borders were not quite definite for most of the period where there was legal status. Ditto the constituent countries of the United Kingdom.

The nth order subdivision of Country seemed to be the easiest way to resolve these although it loses some of the fun of seeing Gemeinde, Kreise, Land (in Germany, say) but redirects can handle that. There are also subdivisions that defy hierarchical categorization: Navajo Nation is a subdivision (in some manner) of the United States of America, not a state, not a subdivision of a state, just something. Also, historic subdivisions of the Holy Roman Empire have similar problems. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Borders

Implicit in any geographic division is the existence of borders between adjoining areas. They are created, change over time, sometimes coexisting in multiple (either disputed or simply uncertain) versions, and they are eliminated. Each change of a border normally is regarded as a historic event by both adjoining areas, not always at an agreed date. A standard way of describing borders should capture all these attributes.LeadSongDog 14:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A subdivision is not necessarily a sub-unit to a division

• from the article Hundred (division) -- Hundreds gradually dropped out of administrative usage, and by the 19th century several different single-purpose subdivisions of counties, such as Poor Law Unions, rural sanitary districts, and Parliamentary divisions, sprung up, filling the administrative role they had previously played. - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• from the article Federal district -- Federal districts are subdivisions of a federal system of government. Often, these districts are not one of the countries' component subdivisions, - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• from the article Counties of Ireland -- The counties are subdivisions of the ancient Provinces of Ireland, - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• 2004-03-07 Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions was created by User:Morwen
• 2004-06-01 Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions (Wales), Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions (Scotland), Wikipedia:WikiProject UK subdivisions (Northern Ireland) were created by User:Keith Edkins
• 2004-09-19 Category:Subdivisions of Finland was created by User:Mic
• 2004-10-04 Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions is created by User:Mzajac [2]

[edit] The term "country subdivision"

• 2004-03-23 User_talk:ChrisO/Country_subdivisions, a WikiProject proposal is created
• 2005-02-14 Wikipedia:Blank maps with several occurances of the term "country subdivision" is created
• 2006-04-11 User:William Allen Simpson claims the term "country subdivision" is newly made up by "Conradi" [3] who he claims found this term in only one ISO document.
  1. If it is in one ISO document it cannot be newly made up by Conradi
  2. Furthermore, I (Tobias Conradi) confirm that I found it in several ISO documents

copied from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4

• 2006-04-11 16:22 Comment. Near as I can tell, ISO 3166 uses Country subdivision, not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be Category:Country subdivisions of Foo. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. Luigizanasi 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2006-04-11 21:48 comment I suggest to read the title of ISO 3166 again. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2006-04-12 05:16 comment. I suggest you read it again, more carefully this time. You might want to ponder why the title is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions, and not Codes for the representation of names of countries and subdivisions, and why the subtitle of the relevant section is Part 2: Country subdivision code and not simply Part 2: Subdivision code. It might help to look up adjective, possessive pronoun, possessive adjective and determinative possessive pronouns. Sorry, but "subdivision" on its own without a qualifying attributive adjective or noun simply does not mean the same thing as political/administrative division/subdivision, and its use in that way will only confuse people. Luigizanasi 05:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• 2006-04-12 10:59 comment I did not read the articles you mentioned, but assume you should read them. their shows possesion, i.e. ... countries and _their_ subdivisions clearly identifies the context. There is no adjective used in the name for ISO 3166. The ISO 3166-1 uses country as clarifier. But if one uses the name of a country, e.g. Norway, one does not necessarily need to say Subdivisions of the country of Norway or Country subdivisions of Norway because Norway generally is perceived as being a country. Maybe only some USians need the extra qualifier that Foo if Foo is a countryname refers to a country? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving discussion

The discussion on the renaming of the category should be taking place on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. I have started a thread there. This should be on country subdivisions in general instead. If we achieve a consensus on the category, we'll come to the articles later. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 08:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good iniative! I really prefer this instead of talking under pressure on a CfD page. Nevertheless, I think we should not at first think about cats and then about articles. Especially it seems better to me not to change cats without having a plan for the articles. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening two paragraphs

Country subdivision can be any type of a subdivision of the territory of a country. Since countries are mostly defined in a political sense the most common country subdivisions often are administrative divisions, where sometimes the term political division is preferred.

Some countries have country subdivisions that are called divisions themselves. So the term "administrative division" as opposed to military division could refer to this specific level alone.

Re ¶1, any ideas/indications why "sometimes the term political division is preferred" to administrative division...?  In lieu of anything official, I suggest "political division" is avoided as (1) it suggests political factions/allegiances/etc (left-wing, right-wing, etc), i.e. nothing administrative; and (2) it also suggests something more contingent than the administrative structures that governments inherit and usually retain.

Re ¶2, I suggest the following as clarification:

A few countries have administrative divisions that are called "divisions". In these instances, texts addressing administrative and military divisions therefore need to be careful to distinguish between the administrative division known as a "division" and the military division known as a "division".

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

For 1 you may ask User:William Allen Simpson. For 2: carefully distingushed shall also be administrative divisions (top) from Administrative division (specific). Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Re 1, thanks; I'll direct him here with a request for information. Re 2, I don't understand the distinction between these kinds of "administrative division"; please elucidate! (Perhaps this is why I might be misunderstanding your comments elsewhere...?)  Thanks, David (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

...Have left WAS a request for assistance, but note he's been inactive for ten or so days... maybe on holiday...?  David (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Subnational entity"

from User_talk:Tobias Conradi - Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC):

Hi Tobias,
I think we should come to a consensus between ourselves as regards this term, not least as it seems we're the only two editors currently looking at the representation and disambiguation of divisional terms in Wikipedia from a worldwide point of view.

As you know, I'm not keen on "subnational entity" as I feel "entity" makes the term too abstract (to use my usual example: a company or other organiz/sation can fit the description). I realiz/se that its use has permeated (the English) Wikipedia, but beyond Wikipedia and its mirrors, "...division" or "...subdivision" seems to be the standard, not "...entity" (e.g. in that material I obtained from the NGA, or the book behind the Statoids website). So I suggest "country subdivision" as preferable; what do you think...?

I also think "subnational entity" is too general to use as disambiguation: for instance, both Ward (subnational entity) and Ward (politics) are subnational entities (in that they both exist ("entities") and relate to a country ("subnational")), so I'd suggest Ward (administrative division) and Ward (electoral division) instead.

(As Administrative divisions of X, Census divisions of X etc are to the generic article Subdivisions of X,
  so X (administrative division), Y (planning division) etc are to the generic term country subdivision.)

Do you have any non-Wikipedia-related or non-internet sources indicating the use of "subnational entity" as a standard...?

Yours, David (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

ISO 3166 uses "country subdivison", some romance language WPs use soething similiar to "Subdivisones de .." and "(sub)national" is problematic if it refers to national entities within multi-nation countries. These where my motives to stop using "subnational entities" e.g. renaming the WP project.

There are lot's of "X (subnational entity)", and there is Category:Subnational entities. If we have more clear mind where we want to go to, these should be dropped to. Sometimes a thing may be both, an eletoral division and census division at the same time. So I am not sure whether we should put too much in the dab. For the cat I currently would suggest Category:Country subdivisions. But lets wait until we have the hierarchy. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's a hierarchy, adapted from here:

Would you be happy if articles were created/renamed/disambiguated along these lines...?  I'd like to make some more progress here, not least for the sake of moving this, this and this into the encyclopedia (possibly with amendments to names etc) and beginning the process of updating occurrences of "subnational entity/ies" etc etc etc.

Regards, David (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dont move before we have an _article_ showing the hierarchy, not some text in talk. The above hierarchy is only red links. Yes, move your user stuff into article space. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but what do you make of the hierarchy above and this...?  Regards, David (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict...)

...Further thought: I don't understand why an article hierarchy needs to be included; does this happen in other topic areas on Wikipedia...?  Wouldn't one or more links to a hierarchy established between categories suffice...? :

"Division (administrative division)" is imo not a good dab. A company can have divisions and they are administrative too. IMO: Integrate your User article into the main one. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

"Division (administrative area)", "Division (administrative region)"...?  (Will imply "Amt (administrative [area/region])", "Sum (administrative [area/region])" etc...)  David (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchy

There is no official need for it. But it helps us to get clear about the topic. Cats can help here too. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistical region sounds better than Statistical division. The Stat division can be a division (unit/entity) of an organization, not having to do with geography at all. But yes, this destroy our nice hierarchy. We should learn more about the "non administrative" territories, regions of the United States has a lot. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

How about:

It seems to me we have the following the choice:

phrase	problem/s
administrative* division	No indication of area, space. Results such as Division (administrative division)
administrative* region	Non-standard/unusual phrase, maybe not favo/ured by other folk...? Results such as Region (statistical region) or the like...?
subnational division	Doesn't identify type of division (administrative, electoral, ...) Possible misunderstanding re "nation"/"country"
subnational entity	Doesn't identify type of "entity", too abstract Possible misunderstanding re "nation"/"country"
* or electoral, statistical, ...

David (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

...On second thoughts, I'm not convinced "administrative region", "electoral region" etc is going to work or be accepted†. Unless I'm overlooking a possibility, therefore, I reckon "administrative division", "statistical division" etc work best as descriptions; Division (administrative division) could be rendered as Division (administrative) and the distinction between a national administrative division and an organiz/sation's administrative division made clear within the article.

As I'm sure you realiz/se, this needs sorting out before I can transfer /Country subdivision. Yours, David (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

† Not least thanks to Special administrative region, for example...

I would better not transfer your user space article, but integrate some thoughts that are not yet in the WP article. Try to sort out problems IN the WP article. That's were collaboration is easiest. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay; I'll try this a little later. Thanks, David (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)