Category talk:Lists of municipalities

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Cities

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Standardization of the lists of municipalities

These lists come under diverse titles and diverse content. I think that the standardization of this kind of articles might be helpful and should be hereby discussed. Specifically:

1- Should there be separate articles for the concept of municipality of a country and for the respective list of municipalities of that country, or should there be a single article containing all the info?

2- What should be the standard title? I see variations such as "municipalities IN xxx" or "municipalities OF yyy".

3- What elements should become standard? Should e.g. the municipal coats of arms, and the map of the country as divided in municipalities be present in the articles whenever possible?

Standardizing would enable to create a page where all the lists of municipalities could be easily sorted by country. I welcome everyone to express their opinion and suggestions. Thank you.--Húsönd 19:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1- Should there be separate articles or a single article?

I am not against the co-existence of articles such as Municipalities of Portugal and List of Municipalities of Portugal, as long as the first one is about the very concept of Portuguese municipality, their history, etc, and the second one is an exact list of them. They shouldn't share the same information (as they do now). --Húsönd 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and request the main article become "Municipalities of X" as (a) this is the format ("Xs of Y") that seems to be the norm for articles on administrative subdivisions; (b) the tendency appears to be for such articles to begin as lists but become more than just lists. Regards, David Kernow 10:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. There should be separate articles and there should not be repetition/redundancy as per WP practice and recommendations. The fact that an article should ideally not go above 30 KB is an automatic recommendation to throw a list (usually quite big) into its own article. As for the articles on the Municipalities of Portugal, the non-list content in my opinion is enough to support its own article, while the list is big enough to be spun-off into its own article. --maf 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound arguments. Maybe we should do this: when starting a new article on municipalities, the main article should be "Municipalities of X". Then, if it grows to a considerable size (with an image-filled list and vast information about the municipalities) the article should have the list detached into a separate "List of Municipalities of X". However, this creates a little problem with Lithuania. There's only one article there List of municipalities of Lithuania, which is about to be moved to Municipalities of Lithuania. It would look a little bit corny to have that article moved just to be split in the near future.--Húsönd 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, maybe we could take this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Country subdivisions, or maybe even start a new WikiProject with the main goal to harmonize municipality articles.--Húsönd 01:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"List of Municipalities of X" -> "List of municipalities of X"
List of districts of India was split of from Districts of India. (Was my idea, so I support your opinions :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities are a (very variable) type of administrative (sub)division, so yes, I guess this discussion ought to be linked/moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Country subdivisions somewhere – Tobias? Re the article on Lithuanian municipalities, do you think it likely that there would be sufficient growth in the near future to merit an accompanying "List of..." article...? Regards, David 11:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Without the list, Lithuania's article is left with a rather introductory text about the municipalities, and a map of Lithuania displaying its administrative divisions. With a bigger text maybe it would justify splitting the article. But for the moment, I think that one article is enough for Lithuania. Regards--Húsönd 14:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2- What should be the standard title?

I believe that "Municipalities OF" sounds better than "Municipalities IN".--Húsönd 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as I feel the possibility that "Xs in Y" might be read as implying all Xs everywhere are the same is stronger than with "Xs of Y". For example, I'd say the state of death (i.e. of not being alive) is the same everywhere, so "Deaths in Fooland" works fine; a municipality, however, is not the same everywhere, so "Municipalities of Fooland". (Apologies for the dramatic contrast!) Regards, David Kernow 10:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that might depend on the local definition of 'Municipality'; specifically whether it is a AREA / region (ie: contiguous), or a LOCATION (ie: separated). An area would be OF it's region, whereas a location would be IN a region. For example: Switzerland is divided into Cantons, which are further divided into Munincipalies; while in the U.S., a Municipality is virtually synonymous with Town or City, and can be separated by many miles from it's nearest neighbor. ~~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

E.g.: Foobar is a Municipality OF Snafu Canton; and Hooterville is a Municipality IN Hoosier County. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3- What elements should become standard?

I think that the lists should be as precise as possible (Lithuania's and Portugal's are superb and I reckon they should serve as models). I also believe that a map of the country as divided in municipalities should be placed when available (see Netherlands').--Húsönd 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and, in lieu of any other action such as merging, would request (for example) the current List of municipalities of Portugal became Municipalities in Portugal even if it had to be at the expense of the current Municipalities in Portugal. (But that information in the text of the current Municipalities of Portugal that is missing from the current List of municipalities of Portugal could be merged with the current List of municipalities of Portugal before it became Municipalities of Portugal – phew!) Regards, David Kernow 10:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I think you (David Kernow) are contradicting yourself, or did I misread you? In answer to Q.1, you agreed to separate articles, the "main" article and its "list" annex. But here you ask for the merger of the two Portugal articles. As for me, I oppose the merger for the reasons I wrote for Q.1, which implies the list currently in the "main" Portugal article (and only the list) should be moved to the "list" article and merged with the list already there, so as to remove the redundancy. --maf 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I have or read as if I have contradicted myself. I'm in favo/ur of two separate articles for the sake of length control but with a preference for there to be a "main" article in each case entitled "Xs of Y", e.g. "Municipalities of Portugal", not "List of...". This is because most articles on national administrative (sub)divisions use this "Xs of Y" format whether or not they contain lists (long, short or implied) or include links to such lists. Hope that is clearer than the above! Regards, David 17:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's something I have in mind. I was thinking about creating a page sorting links for all the existent and yet non-existent lists of municipalities. Maybe Lists of municipalities would serve. This category itself already has a similar purpose, but it can't be efficiently organized. So maybe a list of lists could prove useful.--Húsönd 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible, though I'd be wary of inadvertently creating the impression that all countries with municipalities are meant to have both "Municipalities of..." and "List of municipalities of..." articles. (As I guess you know, some countries only have a handful of municipalities, so a separate "List of..." article is or would be unnecessary.) David 11:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. I will place links for the articles that contain the lists, whatever those articles are currently called. Also, some countries have different terms for municipalities (such as France), and other countries I'm not even sure if they have a subdivision that is equivalent to a municipality (e.g. should the counties of the United States be considered municipalities?). So, variations are very likely to occur. However, I will request moving some articles when justifiable, such as the ones named "municipalities IN" instead of "municipalities OF". As for countries with few municipalities, I agree that there's no need to split into a list article.--Húsönd 14:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re municipalities and then municipalities, this, due to join the encyclopedia soon, may be of interest/assistance. David 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link! You got some great work there, so perfectionistic and complete. Your research about administrative divisions is far ahead of mine. I immediately thought about removing the newborn Lists of municipalities, but then I noticed that your municipalities section links only to the municipalities main articles which, as you know, not always include the list of municipalities. So, should I keep a page linking specifically to those lists? I guess I shouldn't if it will just turn out to be plain redundant list. What do you think? Best regards --Húsönd 19:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may've spent more time on administrative divisions but I don't feel at all ahead – I keep running into pitfalls, such as Russia a couple of days ago and, I fear, Ukraine today... I'm not sure whether or not the links make Lists of municipalities redundant as I can imagine wanting to visit or appreciating a page where the emphasis is on direct links to municipality lists; and even if later it was decided that Lists of municipalities was superfluous (which I'm not sure it is!) then I reckon it would've been a good way to obtain an overview of the situation. I'd say sleep on it and then decide. Yours, David 21:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll give it a while... --Hús ö nd 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to complete the list, following the content you have on your page (section municipalities). Regards. --Hús ö nd 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it links to all municipality articles (thanks to the "Municipalities of..." / "List of municipalities of..." variation) so Lists of municipalities will be a useful comparison. I'll add any list I happen to come by that you haven't added already. Yours, David 01:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]