Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/February

Administrative subdivisions->Country subdivisions

Please rename section "Administrative subdivisions" to "Country subdivisions" and change in text "administrative subdivisions" to "country subdivisions". Not all entities are administrative, e.g. regions of Brazil are statistical. Country subdivision is the broader term. TopoChecker (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the distinction is sufficiently important to warrant renaming the section - and I suspect the "Administrative subdivisions" usage is pretty widespread in national articles. You may be better of suggesting a short addition to the effect that non-administrative subdivisions should be treated in the same way unless otherwise stated, if you think it's important. Ben MacDui 14:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

These two things simply are different. An eagle is a bird, but nut every bird is an eagle. Not every country subdivision is an administrative division. What is the problem with renaming? TopoChecker (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe country subdivision; it has no sources for its neologism. And even it says Country subdivision refers to the division of a sovereign state's territory for the sake of its administration, description or other such purpose. Collecting statistics is an administrative function.

But simply substituting country for administrative in the existing section makes it repeat country three times in different senses. Guidelines should be readable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this race, however, I am not convinced that "Administrative subdivisions" is an entirely appropriate term either. For example, the states in Australia are separately sovereign entities within the Federation. The states here make their own laws for most thigs and the Federal Government may only make laws on things which have a head of power in the Constitution or for things which are ceded to the Commonwealth by the states. I am sure that similar situations exist in other countries, for example as I understand the US, the states there are also separately sovereign entities. The divisions in both cases are far more than merely "administrative". Just what terminology we should use in this guideline, however I am not sure. I suspect that given the variety of legal structures across the world whatever term we use may well turn out to be a neologism for the simple reason that no existing term actually encompasses all the existing entities that we may wish to apply it to. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I would second this as well. "Administrative subdivisions" simply does not work. Nick explained why it does not work for Australia and the US, and I would confirm that it also does not work for Russia, and probably for quite a few other countries (especially the federations). Just because a division facilitates some administrative functions does not automatically make it "an administrative division". My little dictionary of constitutional terminology, for example, contains only a line or two for most term definitions, but it goes into great lengths (two paragraphs at least) to explain just why the federal subjects of Russia are not "administrative divisions", and federal subjects of Russia is definitely a concept falling within the scope of WP:NCCS.

If the term "country subdivisions" does not work, we should seek another alternative. The existing section title should most definitely be replaced with something more sensible. Guidelines should not only be readable, but they should also make sense. Generalization is jolly good, but in this case we are using a term with a specific meaning to refer to a much broader concept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 15:56 (UTC)

Both these comments are to the effect that States of Australia and two other continental countries are not administrative subdivisions. If so, the section does not apply to them. I never thought it did; the only controversial titles among them are Georgia (U.S. state), Washington (state) and Victoria (Australia) (is this last really idiom? isn't Victoria, Australia the natural disambiguation? not my dialect) - unless I am failing to think of a Russian example. Those cannot be decided by title like others of the same class - and all the others are primary usage, independently of this guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If the rule does not apply to the US/Australian states, Russian federal subjects, and other entities of a similar nature, then why does most of the first paragraph discuss the oblasts and uses Moscow Oblast as a specific example? Oblasts of Russia haven't been classified as "administrative divisions" since 1993... along with the rest of the federal subjects. If, according to you, the title of the section is OK, then the first paragraph should be re-written completely; using an example of a real administrative division (not necessarily in Russia).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 20:00 (UTC)

I think the principles written in the section can equally apply to all subdivisions, whether or not they're strictly administrative, though I don't think the title will mislead anyone (people looking for advice on what to call not-strictly-administrative-according-to-some-definitions subdivisions are still going to consult that section).--Kotniski (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it did mislead both me and Nick, so I guess it is misleading to at least some people (and especially those who know about the countries for which the distinction is important). So, if the section is to cover all, including not-strictly-administrative divisions (as per you), then why not change the title to something more appropriate? And if it is to cover only administrative divisions (as per PMA), then why not re-write the text to say so? What's the point of having it neither way?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 20:19 (UTC)

Did it really mislead you to the extent that you didn't bother reading that section because you genuinely didn't expect it to cover your kind of subdivision? But I'm not sure what to change it to anyway - "country subdivisions" isn't clear, maybe "subdivisions of countries", but then many of them are subdivisions of entities within countries rather than of the actual countries... perhaps "administrative subdivisions and similar" if we want to be both clear and pedantic.--Kotniski (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It did mislead me enough to bother to change the title of the section... only to be promptly reverted. When I see oblasts discussed in a section titled "administrative divisions", it either means the title is wrong, or someone didn't know that oblasts are not administrative divisions. My assumption was that the title is wrong, and this thread confirmed it. "Subdivisions of countries" would be fine by me, by the way (if only per this), and so would be "administrative and other divisions", or whatever other wording that's sufficiently tight but not overly broad. PMA, what's your take on this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 20:46 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the Russian republics (which have had the same somewhat questionable claim to sovereignty since Soviet times), not the provinces (when did they claim sovereignty? There was a house in Peter which claimed sovereignty in 1917, but nobody accepted it); I will admit that I haven't kept up with Russian federal theory. I have no objection to adding and other, and will do so; I doubt it will confuse anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They did not claim sovereignty, but when the Constitution of Russia was adopted in 1993—almost twenty years ago—all former administrative divisions of the RSFSR (which included both republics and oblasts, along with other types) became equal members of the Federation (pretty much the same way the US states are equal members of the Union, even though they are a lot more uniform than Russia's federal subjects). As for the change, it's a good start, but I am still having a problem with the section header. Can't we change it to just "Subdivisions" or something?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2011; 21:25 (UTC)

I see no signs of equality or sovereignty; according to this translation, there are no areas of exclusive jurisdiction by "subjects" - a well-chosen name - and subject legislation yields to federal law in all cases whatsoever. Municipalities in all English-speaking countries have the right to pass by-laws too; that doesn't change their status. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You should read the entire Constitution then; it's all in there. While some types of the federal subjects have slightly more (or, should I say, slightly different) rights than the other, they are all equal members of the Federation; with equal representation in the Federation Council, just like each US state, for example, has equal representation in the United States Senate (and has the right to pass its own laws).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)

Why is there so much pedantry over the exact meaning of administrative division? Prima facie it means an established smaller unit used to legislate local laws. I don't think it matters whether the division was top-down or bottom-up (federation), it's still a division of a country. The CIA agrees with me. Probably a good idea to change it to subdivisions though, in case there is some random outlier. Subdivisions is an all-encompassing term anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Because we are an encyclopedia (with the goals quite different from those of the CIA), and we should be paying attention to this kind of things. The CIA list simply assigns the "administrative divisions" label to all top-level divisions of all countries; including the United States. That's convenient and serves their purpose, but academically it is just not right. The exact definition of an "administrative division" is very country-specific; heck, in Russia alone administrative divisions are handled differently and tracked separately from the municipal divisions, even though in 98% of cases they occupy the exact same territory. Other countries may have their own idiosyncrasies. This is precisely why "administrative divisions" is such a poor choice in our guidelines. "Subdivisions", on the other hand, is sufficiently vague to avoid this kind of complication, yet not so vague as to make the editors wonder just what the heck the guideline covers, exactly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)

A third alternative

How about the term National subdivision? This makes better English than "Country subdivision" and avoids to issues identified above with "Administrative subdivision". - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've supplied a few sources supporting the use of the term "country subdivision" in English here (Nick, if you could comment regarding what you think about those sources, I'd appreciate it). As for "national subdivision", I myself am indifferent—I think it's neither much better nor much worse that "country subdivision", and also enjoys its share of use in English (as these gbooks hits would attest). The problem is that "country subdivision" is already used in many areas in Wikipedia, and changing it to another term would require quite a bit of extra work with hardly any additional benefits.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 31, 2011; 21:21 (UTC)

I'm not sure people are necessarily going to understand "national subdivision" any better than "country subdivision". Are divisions within a city, say, felt to be divisions of a nation or country? I would think it more likely that someone scanning the page or the table of contents to find this guidance would overlook the section if it were renamed to something like this (and I don't see much other reason to be concerned about this point - as I say, to avoid perceived inaccuracy we could add "and similar" to the present title).--Kotniski (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You've got a point there. What do you think about changing the section to just "Subdivisions"? Nick, I'd appreciate your thoughts as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 1, 2011; 20:55 (UTC)

I'm not particularly wedded to any alternative, I just proposed "National subdivision" to see whether it might satisfy both sides of the debate. As for just "subdivisions" it avoids my main objection to "country subdivision" - that the word "country" is not an adjective. I have just re-read the section in question and I wonder whether it is clear what we are talking about to anyone visiting this guidline for the first time. Would we be better to expand the heading a little, perhaps to something like "States, Provinces and similar regional subdivision". Just a thought. - Nick Thorne ^talk 21:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean use something descriptive, even if it's on the longish side? I'd be OK with that. Folks?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 1, 2011; 21:47 (UTC)

Exactly - after all, this is not an article title and as I think about it, clarity would seem to be more desirable than brevity in this case to avoid confusion. - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

National subdivision can have the connotation that an entity exists to group people from a certain ethnicity, see Administrative divisions of China, or in Russia JAO, U.S. Cherokee Nation, Canada List of First Nations governments. How about Territorial division/Territorial entity? I would prefer entity since it does not have the connotation of an act. The term would avoid reference to the country level, thus can include euroregions like Meuse-Rhine Euroregion. Since the sections are labeled in plural, it would be Territorial entities. Subdivision and administrative division are too vague, they have no reference to any territorial extension. A company can have a subdivision for trucks and one for motorcycles. Maybe also territorial subdivisions. I would prefer to choose a term over description since people in discussions can then easier refer to the topic. Territorial entity would also include physical geography objects like the Amazon Basin, so that would be one guideline for human and physical geography resulting in more consistency. NCGN (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reducing country specific text

When country specific text states what the NCGN says anyway, then that should be removed. E.g. Argentina: "Where possible, articles on places in Argentina use Placename." That is the default rule for all articles in Wikipedia. Exceptions only exist for U.S. populated places, and maybe for Australia. NCGN (talk) 02:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

— NCGN (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Good point. I agree with removing redundant guidelines. There are way too many specific naming conventions, most of which are completely unnecessary. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly too many specific naming conventions; however, that sentence is not redundant; or, at least, removal would require a major rewrite of the other two sentences, which would, in turn, require discussion and consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Best to have geographic specific criteria, even if redundant.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Where [or perhaps rather "When"] disambiguation is required, [[City, Province]] is used, except for provincial capitals which use [[City, Argentina]]. See Category:Populated places in Argentina and its subcategories" is perfectly clear by itself. I don't see the use of redundancy of the first sentence, on the contrary it might introduce doubt as to whether "use [[Placename]]" is the general convention. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Most people, consulting these sections, will be looking for one specific section on one country. It will be useful to them to have the entirety of the guidance for Argentina in front of them when they click on it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for new section: Federated States of Micronesia

Would this be the place to propose a quick guideline for the Federated States of Micronesia? I know it's a very small country, with hardly any articles on it, but in the various Lists of countries there seems to be an trend of incorrectly naming, most likely due to lack of awareness.

Because Micronesia is a region, there is no official short form name for the FSM, apart from the acronym. It is not called "Micronesia" but this appears to be the trend in these lists. But this is similar to calling the United States "America". It's not very encyclopaedic, especially seeing as the name carries heavy a political connotation when used to refer to only one part of a very wide region. It would be in line with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV to add a quick message such as:

"When referring to the Federated States of Micronesia, the long-form should be used. There is no official short-form name, and the use of simply "Micronesia" can ambiguous. It is also often seen as disassociating to other parts of the region."

Rennell435 (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Based on usage in the NY Times [1], it appears that the official name is the long name, but is commonly referred to as just "Micronesia". I mean, the formal name of the United States is "United States of America", but we still refer to it as the "United States" for short. This seems like the same thing. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's worth setting up something similar to the Ireland style, with Micronesia able to be used when the context is unambiguously the state and not the region? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no comparison to the useage of "United States" for the U.S., or "Ireland" for the Republic of Ireland, because they are the official short form names for those countries. A better analogy would be with the useage of "America" for the U.S., or "Central Africa" for the Central African Republic. The FSM doesn't have a short-form name, and it's never referred to as "Micronesia" in official contexts. Rennell435 (talk) 09:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to stem from the {{Country data Micronesia}} redirect, which allows the {{flag|Micronesia}} to be used in any "List of countries by...". Nightw 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a comparison, if not a direct analogy, and "Ireland" is also the official long name ;) Anyway, there seems to be some idea on english wikipedia where official names sometimes aren't used, but common names are. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

...Where appropriate. I'm sure there's a reason that we don't allow {{flag|America}} to be used. Nightw 16:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, the flaws of a consensus encyclopaedia. If only we could use {{flag|Federated States}} for FSM!(Per United States, of course) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

But "Ireland" is also a common name for the state; Using "Micronesia" for the FSM is not very common outside Wikipedia, and it's never referred to as such in official documents and reliable publications. So, if the redirect is the problem in the lists, how do I go about getting that redirect deleted? It's against WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV to have it in the first place. Can we add a brief statement on this page for clarification with editing? Rennell435 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I just did a google search "Micronesia", and besides the wikipedia page Micronesia the hits on the first page use the name for the state. The US state department has it listed under Micronesia, as does the bbc. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But these aren't official documents. The FSM does not claim it as its shortform name. And using "Micronesia" is ambiguous, as the common definition refers to the region. Rennell435 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia (for better or worse) doesn't depend on the official status for names, hence titles such as North Korea and South Korea. Additionally, I disagree that the common definition is the region, based on a few google searches I've been running through, although if you got that from somewhere that'd be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The original proposer has made an entirely clear and reasonable suggestion. "Micronesia" is problematic for many reasons, and in the absence of a short title the full title should be used unless there are clear and compelling reasons in a particular instance why this is not appropriate. It is like using America as a short form of United States of America - just because the Federated States of Micronesia is a small country doesn't make it any more appropriate. And, unlike the China dispute (or, arguably the Timor Leste dispute), there is not a clear and widespread use of the incorrect name. As an encyclopedia, accuracy trumps common usage. It especially trumps uncommon usage. 203.219.241.110 (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with this. The term doesn't read quite right in an encyclopaedic context, and I can't shake the analogy to "America", which I'd also object to unless there was a good reason for. The most compelling reason, however, given the country's lack of notability, is ambiguity. I think that most of the problem would be fixed if that redirect template was deleted. I mean, I'd definitely object to America in any list of countries. It doesn't look very academic. Nightw 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been without internet access for a few weeks now. Is there a consnsus to add this, or should the issue be taken elsewhere? The template is probably the key issue..... Rennell435 (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I've added this section, and lodged a WP:TFD also. Rennell435 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to object. "Federated States of Micronesia" is akin to calling France the "French Republic" or the UK "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Whilst these long names are sometimes or even often used in official context to extend courtesy to an other government, for the purposes of an encyclopaedia it is simply not practical to use the full official name all the time.

As for ambiguity : In lists of country especially there will be no ambiguity as only countries are listed. In other instances, editors should be free to use which ever version they feel appropriate in each individual case - let's not overdo it with the conventions ! Travelbird (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ambiguity is not the only issue. It's also incorrect: according to reputable sources, the FSM does not have a short-form name (see the ISO, the FCO, the CIA, the USBGN, the UNGEGN), which means using the long-form is not analogous to using the "French Republic" or anything of the sort, as it's the only form, at least in an academic context. Nightw 07:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, it's simply incorrect. It has come about purely through colloquial usage. There's no legal context behind its usage. Rennell435 (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't colloquial usage (colloquially used by reliable sources such as the BBC) apply to WP:COMMONNAME? Legal context isn't necessary. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Be careful about labelling usage as "incorrect". We're not here to decide that. But I do think there's some justification for being proper, at least when editing Wikipedia. Legal context certainly shouldn't be the only deciding factor, but it should be taken into account. As I've said before, I wouldn't like seeing the term "America" next to a U.S. flag in an encyclopaedic context.

This is a unique situation, since while WP:COMMONNAME might justify its usage, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC might suggest that the region get the name? I don't know. For me, deletion of the template will be enough, I don't think there needs to be a guideline personally. Nightw 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The region has the name, but I still don't think the template needs to be deleted. Ignoring legality for the moment per WP:COMMONNAME and Burma/North Korea etc., we have Ireland and Republic of Ireland. However, in lists of countries Republic of Ireland is shown as Ireland, due to the obvious fact a list of countries wouldn't include the island (I just realised I should say list of sovereign states since it's that region...). The same should be true of Micronesia, countries obviously wouldn't include Micronesia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

However, the official name of the Republic of Ireland is, in fact, "Ireland." Not the case here. I think the real question is whether there is common usage of plain "Micronesia" in reliable sources. john k (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I did explicitly say that my argument was made ignoring legality. I was providing a counterpoint to the America argument, showing the situation exists where a larger geographic area is used as a name for the state.

As for common name, I mean, the US Department of State titles the country page Micronesia. It is undoubtedly in use. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)