Talk:ISO 3166-2:FR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject France  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


This article is just wrong as, for similar reasons, are those, as of 2005-08-19, of Albania (AL) and Spain (ES) and maybe others. IMO it needs urgent editing if others are to avoid the wasted hours I have through taking it literally.

If you read the change notice at http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/03updates-on-iso-3166/nli-2.pdf you will see that ISO-3166-2:FR describes a hierarchy. There are five types of regions described:

1) région (22)

2) région/d&eactute;partement d'outre mer (4) - i.e. overseas territories which are both regions and departments of France (these also happen to have their own 3166-1 code).

3) de&eactute;partements (96) - second level divisions which are classified within region.

4) collectivité territoriale (2) - overseas territories (these also have their own 3166-1 code).

5) territoire d'outre mer (4) - another class of overseas dependency, each with their own 3166-1 code.

The reason why the country code prefix is excluded from the top level as shown in the Standard document is simply for readability - so you can readily see which level you are looking. It most certainly does not imply these region codings are not part of the Standard, nor that the prefix is not required in an international context. Thus, for example, FR-V is the code for région Rhône-Alps which is composed of départements FR-01 Ain, FR-07 Ardéche, FR-38 Isè, FR-42 Loire, and FR-74 Haute Savoie.

Additionally, the labels are an integral part of the Standard and, IMO, should be shown in the article as they are in the Standard. If it is felt important to include English versions of the names these should be additional and marked as such.

Just my 10 cents... --ChrisDent 12:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)