This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.
Some Trivia that would need sourcing prior to adding to the article is that welcome signs used to say, "Welcome to the three states of Tennessee", before this practice was abolished by one of the former governors in a unify the state campaign. Jon 18:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The governor in question was Winfield Dunn; he did this within a month of taking office in January 1971 in fulfillment of a campaign promise. I remember it like it was last year; but would assume that it would probably take an article from The Commercial Appeal or
The Tennessean of that era to validate this. If you feel ambitious, you can start in the Tennessean archives for February, 1971, and I guess that you'd find it. Rlquall 14:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages and maps a bit confused on this?
I saw recent edits on whether Sequatchie County was in east or middle Tennessee, "legally". Poking around I found a map in the Tennessee Blue Book showing the divisions by county and citing Tennessee Code--and that sure enough Sequatchie is middle. Since the Blue Book is online as a bunch of PDFs it is hard to link directly to the map, but: Tennessee Blue Book 2009-2010 main page, Section VI - Tennessee, Origin of County Names, page 539 (the last page of the PDF), shows and lists the divisions by county, citing the relevant legal code. I briefly thought about using this to fix some of the things on Wikipedia that don't match this division, but it's too much work for me right now, so I am just posting here. One of the main problems I see is that the maps used to show the divisions, colored red by county, don't match the map in the Blue Book--Sequatchie County being the obvious example (maybe the only difference? I didn't check closely). So really, not only should a number of pages be edited on the topic, but the maps changed. The existing references about the divisions leave a bit to be desired. Perhaps referencing this blue book page would help, even though the map is annoying hidden at the last page of a PDF. Anyway, it's all a bit daunting to me--my list of things to do is already too long! Pfly (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved per nomination (by Kaldari).Orlady (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Grand Divisions → Grand Divisions of Tennessee — I am starting this move discussion after discovering that "Tennessee" was removed from the title on the grounds that it's not necessary for disambiguation with other Wikipedia articles. I believe it needs to be restored because it is needed for context as part of the actual common name of these divisions. The term is almost never used without a modifier, such as "Tennessee's Grand Divisions," "the three Grand Divisions of Tennessee," or (only in-state) "the state's three Grand Divisions"; for an example, see this simple map. Also, it is relevant to possible disambiguation needs, as there are numerous other contexts in which the term "Grand Divisions" (sometimes as a proper noun and sometimes as a generic noun) is used. Some examples of other uses of "grand divisions": zoology, military, railroads, a funeral procession, groups of people in South Asia, religious teachings from India --Orlady (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, and "Grand Divisions of Tennessee" is better than the previous "Grand Divisions (Tennessee)". Pfly (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support per nom, and agree that "Grand Divisions (Tennessee)" is not the best option either. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Support, if it isn't to be merged into Tennessee as a section. Vsmith (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I titled it with the parenthetical (Tennessee) on the assumption that it would one day need to be disambiguated: disambiguation-ready, if you will. At least...I think that's why I did that. Anyway, I think the title should include Tennessee but I don't care what specific form it takes of the titles mentioned. -- stillnotelfis invisible 15:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Pre-disambiguationg is genearally discouraged, hence why I said it was not a good option. Anyway, I think Orlady makes a good case for her suggested title, and it's not pre-diambiguation, but a more complete title. - BilCat (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Support. Seems like a less confusing title to me. Kaldari (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.