Talk:Subregion

message: This makes absolutely no sense to me. 205.174.22.28 05:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

message: Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Siberia, Talk:Latin America, Talk:Scandinavia, Talk:Middle East and Talk:Balkans, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree, but this isn't limited to mere English usage/mastery.  I'm finding much of the content based on uncited, unverifiable points-of-view.  That's why I've been so adamant in making various (some unilateral) editions that are precisely rooted in the opposite and consistent with Wp policies.  If I can be of assistance, please let me know.  E Pluribus Anthony 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I am inclined to agree. This article should not be a list of proposed countries and Kurdistan is a proposed country. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining the extent and limits of an exotic [[region]]

message: Today I created the article Congo (region) mainly because I felt that it was missing from Template:Regions of the world. Only afterwards did I discover that Congo already exists, but that this article seems to restrict itself to dealing solely with the two Congos, and not the wider, vaguer subregion. What is the preferred option now: should Congo me merged with Congo (region) and redirect to Congo (disambiguation) instead? Please have your say here. Thanks.
And a related issue: I would argue that the UN designation Middle Africa - which currently redirects to Central Africa - is the least ambiguous name for the region, as listed at Template:Africa, just like Southern Africa is used to effectively disambiguate from South Africa. Please respond here. Thanks! // Big Adamsky  • BA's talk page 10:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature: ''Congo Region'' and ''Middle Africa''

message: Where is Mexico? I can't find it in Central America. Has it been moved into the newly designated UN subregion of Central America (subregion)?
I know that Mexicans don't consider norteamericano to refer to them or their country. Maybe that's why the UN created subregions, to be politically correct. But this is (a) an encyclopedia (b) for English-speaking people.
And some of us would like to know what continent Mexico is in. Is it in North America or South America or America (continent) or what? --Uncle Ed 15:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The continent of North America (003) comprises Northern America (021), Caribbean (029), and Central America (013). 
Interesting how every continent other than "Americas" has its component parts listed alphabetically. The UN statistics folks figured out a way of putting the United States where you'd have a hard time finding it, since "Northern America" isn't listed alphabetically. I guess somebody decided it was time to bring Americans off their high horse. Ole! --Uncle Ed 16:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mexico

message: To make an great article about geographical classifications like continents, regions or subregions, it would help if we first wrote an article (or series) which was just about the UN subregion scheme. The current articles are trying to do too much at once.
I vote that we create one page per subregion (a dozen or more), simply listing the countries which the UN statistics office has classed in each subregion. Then we can but them together, or turn them into templates or merge them.
I wish you would stop simply turning my work into redirects. We could be helping each other here. --Uncle Ed 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support creating a list/article about the UN subregions (and will work on this; I'm on a wikibreak of sorts).  However, as above, dedicated articles for each UN subregion are unnecessary forks and rather redundant.  Each of the sub/regional articles already treat the UN subregions in-text and (if necessary) compare and contrast with other or usual reckonings that may differ from them.  Forks help no-one, nor do their continued addition.  In fact, it seems that you should probably be considering the addition of particular categories instead.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conventional usage and the United Nations scheme

message: You mean something like this? BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 23:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stats for UN subregions

message: No way that Eastern Eruope goes all the way to the Pacific Ocean. That's absurd and false. Clean this article up. In addition, North Africa does not entail the entire country of Sudan. This article seems to be more about legitimizing racial status-quo than anything else. Eastern Europe is basically based on Russian territory, while Sudan being a Muslim nation is considered wholly a part of the North African (Muslim/Arab) structure. This article should conform more to historical/cultural/physical regions and not nationalistic and political. --68.60.55.162 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Europe 

message: I only got this by clicking "Random page" but with luck someone here may be able to solve a bit of a problem for me. From time to time the missus and I translate Hungarian geographical articles. Indeed, I have made  and various templates (in Category:Hungary geographical name conversion templates) to assist this.
Subregions of Hungary (), sing. kistérség) are divisions of counties. I would prefer to translate it as "district", but that seems to be the terminology in use generally, and is how at least 1 native Hungarian naturally translates it, even though she lives in the UK where we would term such a thing a district or borough.
My difficulty here is I would like to include that as some kind of disambiguation in this article, but obviously since it generally is referring to much larger areas, it does not seem to deserve a section, and to put it as a hatnote may also give it undue prominence (and could open a can of worms about ever other kind of subregion in the world). Leaving aside any argument about whether this particular kind of subregion is the primary topic, what is the best to do here? Even a "See also" seems less than useful if someone is stubling towards its meaning for Hungarian articles and finds themselves confronted with these large areas, I think they would be more likely to click away than scroll down to the see also (and anyway its purpose is not to disambiguate but to lead to related information).
Any opinions, suggestions? Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Subregion" in Hungary (or Hungarian) 

message: In the broad sense, the term "subregion" simply means a subdivision of a region. And the term "region" has a broad meaning with many usages across many fields. But this page, called "subregion", seems to be solely about the United Nations geoscheme. This is hardly the only way the term "subregion" is used. So, I don't see why this page even exists, at least in its present form. It is a "non-exhaustive list of [UN geoscheme] subregions", yet the United Nations geoscheme already provides a non-exhaustive list and links to exhaustive lists of regions and subregions within the UN geoscheme (like United Nations geoscheme for Africa and United Nations geoscheme for the Americas). It seems to me this page should be merged with the UN geoscheme page, if there is anything here that isn't also there. Otherwise it should either be deleted as redundant, or rewritten. No? Pfly (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be deleted since it's redundant, I agree with you. This page was created as a POV fork years ago by a user who used lots of sockpuppets (some of them E Pluribus Anthony and Quizimodo are listed in the article history). So this page should be deleted. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 16:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[United Nations geoscheme]]? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Subregions.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: warned of it 18 years ago and nobody paid attention.
The UN geoscheme is a tool of the UN statistics dept. An internal tool built for a specific purpose under specific UN constraints. It has little to do with geography per se.
No geographer will use this scheme, and it has major oddities from a geographic pov: numerous countries added or left out from any definition of (sub)regions used in GEOGRAPHY, as opposed to: in UN statistics. The UN scheme never intended to set a GEOGRAPHIC standard.
The article now, with its title and definition (presented, as always, in the lead), MISLEADS users into believing that this is a geography article; it is NOT, it's a Wiki publicising effort of an obscure, specific UN Statistics Department working tool, which became far too visible on Wiki (proliferation of spin-off articles, lots of cross-refs by Wikilinks, too general titles) due to editors misunderstanding the topic themselves. Even the UN has more than one scheme, each used by another department. Warning for sticklers looking for UN sources explicitly making my point: You won't find a document stating for lay people that this or that UN scheme is not meant for general geographic use, because that's self-evident to all those it's actually meant for, i.e. the UN clerks. Wiki editors fundamentally misunderstood it for close to two decades, and it mushroomed into an entire cluster of misleading articles. They must now be sorted out, or else the user is f***ed! 
I propose uniting them into one article (nothing new, see 11-years-old proposal here-above - hi !), huge or not, so that they become less likely to mislead.
As a minimum, this article should add to its title and definition (lead's 1st paragraph) "for UN statistical use only" or alike. Maybe rename as "UN statistical subregions", with the definition (at top of lead) containing the phrase "for use by UN Statistics Department".
If one insists on RS proof, look at UN's FAQ page here. Examples: the UN subregions take into consideration state borders: with the breakup of the USSR, they are changed. Not the physical geography has changed, just the political one! So these UN statistical subregions are constantly changing, depending on changes to state borders; impermanent, unlike physical geography. There has even been a subregion "USSR"! Also: there are additional bureaucratic subsets, only misleading if mistaken to relate to physical (or even political) geography, as well as in terms of the plain meaning of their names: see "Northern America" and "North America" subregions (latter one contains Caribbean and Central Am. w. Mexico; former one does not).
"Make the Wiki encyclopedia better for the benefit of the user", the No. 1 overriding obligation we have, asks that we undo this mess. Arminden (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  MISLEADING ARTICLE!!! Rework top to bottom! 

message: I have removed "Inner Asia/Greater Central Asia" as subset of Muslim World containing Turkic world and Greater Iran.
Inner Asia is very different from Greater Central Asia, and neither is part of the Muslim World, as they contain lots of majority-non-Muslim countries & regions. Arminden (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inner Asia ≠ Greater Ctrl Asia ≠ part of Muslim World