Talk:Communes of Chile
|WikiProject Chile||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
I've added additional information to the Municipalities of Iquiqui and Pica in the first region.
This is my suggestion as to the kind of added information which would be useful to readers who are interested in this subject to help them appreciate and understand the differing entities, from regions down to even villages, which might share the same name but have different functions and roles to play in the country.
It will be a big job to complete this addition for all the Municipalities in the country, I hope others will join in and add to this as they have the time and opportunity. The information is available from the Stats dept of Chile , just search of the latest census report. --JAXHERE | Talk 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note - the naming should remain as it is on both this page (Municipalities of Chile) and the provinces page (Provinces of Chile). I noticed these changes and have moved them back to their proper pages (I also noticed that the user did not move "Regions of Chile" to "List of regions of Chile" - inconsistent). This is a standard developed at WP:Countries and is reflected among most of the country articles and administrative subentities. Thanks! :) Rarelibra (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not change this list from the alphabetical order it is in. The regions may be listed from North to South, but the provinces and communes should not. Remember this IS English wikipedia. Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm using the order used officially by Chilean institutions. See here. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Here are a few things for you to consider (from WP:LIST):
- The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of minor Star Wars characters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers). When using a more complex form of organization, (by origin, by use, by type, etc.), the criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit.
- Even when the meaning of a list's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about. In other words, it should present the inclusion criteria items must meet in order to qualify to be added to the list.
What this means, then, is that you may have the list as per your wish - however, it must be properly referenced and explained within the leading paragraph. So until that occurs, it will remain alphabetical. Rarelibra (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
According to several sources, including the Gobierno do Chile, Gobierno do Chile, and Statoids, the name of these are municipalidades (municipalities), and they are listed in alphabetical order on the official website. That should hopefully end any argument as to listing them from North to South as the Regions are listed (as is proper according to the same government website). Rarelibra (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- This link proves nothing. It is not an official document.
- Municipalidad does not equal Commune. Municipalidad is the governing body and the Commune is the territory. This is even contained in this link you provided.
- This link also proves nothing, as it just a standard web menu and not an official document. Same with this link.
- This article is about the communes (comunas) not about the municipalities (municipalidades). You can create another article titled Municipalities of Chile if you so desire, but leave this one where it is.
- Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Columns for the list
As this list is very long, I suggest that the list under each section be split into columns, like so:
===XV – Arica and Parinacota Region===
===I – Tarapacá Region===
I suggest this would make the list easier to read. I chose not to be bold here because I see there has been debate on the layout of this page before. Jake the Editor Man (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)