Category talk:Lists of municipalities

message: I believe that "Municipalities OF" sounds better than "Municipalities IN".--Húsönd 20:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: 2- What should be the standard title?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Re municipalities and then municipalities, this, due to join the encyclopedia soon, may be of interest/assistance. David 19:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Yeah, I'll give it a while... --Húsönd 19:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok, I'll try to complete the list, following the content you have on your page (section municipalities). Regards. --Húsönd 21:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: 3- What elements should become standard?