Category talk:Divided regions
|WikiProject Politics||(Rated Category-class)|
|WikiProject Geography||(Rated Category-class)|
What is a divided region? What isn't a divided region?
"This category contains transnational regions, islands, etc, i.e. areas that are known under a common name, but are or have been politically divided by national borders, into separate sovereign and/or subnational entities."
Can someone clarify what this category means, why it is important to have it, and explain why some places are in this category and others aren't (some sort of demarcation criteria)? Is this a category about region names or the regions themselves?
Should the following be included: North America? South America? Scandinavia? The Netherlands? Polynesia? Etc. Why or why?
As it currently stands, I think this category is too vague to be meaningful. But it raises some interesting questions....
--Gruepig 07:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. I think one defining criteria for this category would be that the region in question has existed as a single identifiable cultural or political unit (at least its core) for at least as long as the political borders that currently divide it. See also Region, Subregion and traditional region. //Big Adamsky 10:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Divided regions - an outline
I started this category with the notion of wanting to highlight the fact that there are in existance a number of formal administrative entities (subnational and otherwise) that carries the same name despite the fact that they are located in separate countries, and they do this because they are seen as parts of a larger region.
I carefully considered a number of options on what criteria should apply for an article to qualify, and how to apply them. In the process of populating the category I however found myself bending those rules in order to include articles that I felt important to the category. However this case by case twisting has produced, atleast a perception of, something like a catch-all category, which wasn't initially intended, and that's an aspect I'm not entirely pleased with.
The initial text that I wrote to explain the category has been rephrased, and that is something I did not nor will I object to, but maybe something has been lost in precision. When I notice that the articles for England, Scotland and Wales has been added to the category I start to wonder on what grounds, because that is something I never imagined would've been possible. Accordingly the question raised above is highly releveant and I think I would be appropriate to try to better define what should and what should not be included.
What is at heart here is the perception that what was once one region, is now divided by a border and existing simultaneously in at least two separate sovereign states. The primary indicator of being a single region is that it can in fact be identified with a single name.
A divided region might be the subject of conflict, but this category is not mainly for the material conflicts themselves; that is for Category:Disputed territories. A divided region might also be subject to irredentist claims, but the main category for that is Category:Irredentism. Even if this is not the place for neither disputes nor claims the identification of the region in question is central, and the mere fact of sharing a name is not necessarily sufficient in itself.
That being said, it is possible to ask a number of additional questions:
- Continents are known by a single name and are typically divided between several sovereign states, should they be included?
- This category is intended for regions that cross national borders, but typically does not include entire or several countries in themselves. In the case of divided countries or divided island nations a divided region would include the countries and the island as a whole, but no other groupings of nations or entire continents would be included.
- Example: Cyprus and the Korean peninsula are examples of divided regions, but Scandinavia and Africa are not.
- Sovereign states are sometimes divided into federal states or constituent countries, should they be included?
- No, subnational entities are to their nature not examples of divided regions themselves unless they form a part of a region located in another sovereign state.
- Example: Neither England, Scotland and Wales nor North Carolina and South Carolina are examples of divided regions as described here. Northern Ireland and the US state of California can however be regarded as components of the divided regions of Ireland and the larger California, which extends into Mexico, respectively.
- Could all articles relating to a divided region be added here?
- No, because eventually that would make it difficult to find the articles which are relevant.
- Example: Include Limburg, but do not include Limburgish language.
- But there are already several articles with similar names should all of them be there?
- The original idea was to include "two of each", signifying how the region was divided on two or more entities, in separate countries. I have reconsidered and now believe that it would be better to include one article (with category) per region. Different subdivisions should instead be placed in secondary categories.
- Example: Include Tyrol and Category:Tyrol, but exclude other related articles. Tyrol (state), North Tyrol, East Tyrol, South Tyrol and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol should be included in Category:Tyrol and secondary categories.
- Is it really necessary to have a secondary category for subdivisions, isn't it enough to categorize the regions as such?
- The intention was originally to included just subdivisions and I think there is merit to the idea. It actually is interesting to notice that there are entities in different countries that is part of another structure than the current political, regardless if it is historical, cultural or geographic. With this categorization it will actually be possible to recognize this structure when reading or reviewing an article. Another point might be that an article or category for the entire extended region might not exist yet.
- Example: Include California, Baja California and Baja California Sur in a secondary category. The Category:California is about the US State only and an article for the extended region does not seem to exist.
- A divided region might have subdivisions, which do share the name of the region, should it still be listed in a secondary category?
- No, its not the intention here to include subdivisions, on any level, even when located within the region, if it is not named after it. (Instead these could be added to the category of the individual region. It might also be a case of creating a separate category for subnational entities belonging to either Category:Disputed territories or Category:Irredentism)
- Examples: Include Basque Country in the main category and Basque Country (autonomous community) in the secondary category. However Álava, Gipuzkoa, Vizcaya, Navarre, Pyrénées-Atlantiques, etc would not be included.
- There are both formal administrative entities and informal subdivisions should they really be put into the same category?
- It might be a good idea to separate formal and informal subdivisions of a divided region into separate categories. Informal regions are often based on historical formal entities, and one way to solve delimitation problems would be to group current formal entities separately from historical and informal subregions.
- Example: The Moravian-Silesian Region would be categorized as a current formal subdivision, while Czech Silesia would be categorised separately as a informal, cultural, historical and georaphic subdivision, of the divided region Silesia. West Bengal would be categorized as a current formal subdivision, while East Bengal would be categorised separately as a informal, cultural, historical and georaphic subdivision, of the divided region Bengal.
- What about subdivisions that are supposed to have the same name, but are still spelled completely different?
- There are a number of articles where current formal subdivisions are named according to different principles and in different languages. The problem here is that even though they share the same name they are spelled quite differently, which makes it difficult to connect them. If they are relatively few I can see no good reason to exclude them, but it would be alot simpler if they could be renamed. However, even attempting to rename a single article could affect the whole system of how subnational entities within that particular country has been named. I see no easy sollution to this problem.
- Example: The current administrative entities of Śląsk Voivodship, Dolny Śląsk Voivodship, Moravian-Silesian Region, Niederschlesischer Oberlausitzkreis could be included, and could be sorted under the letter "S", but it would be difficult to connect them if you are not already familiar with that Silesia, is named named Schlesien, Śląsk or Slezsko in local languages.
- Regions that have the same names, but are located geographically far apart are they parts of the same region?
- Entities that share the same names, and are located geographically adjacent are they parts of the same region?
- I think it is possible to apply geography as an identifier if there are current entities that share the same name. But it would also be possible to place them in a category for places with similar place names, regardless of where they are located.
- Example: The Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo are both named after the Congo river, but they are not necessarily seen as parts of a divided region.
These are some of the relevant issues, but there are still several pending questions regarding delimitation, and the article topography. -- Domino theory 19:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does China alphabetize with a “♪”? And Duchy of Schleswig with a “}”? (And in italics, too.) There is nothing on either of those pages in the category coding that should do that. I'd fix it if I could, but I can't figure it out. — Michael J 01:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)