Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Country subdivisions/Naming

message: I made changes to names of subnational entities in Thailand and Ukraine and also changed some name in Netherlands and Argentina. Some user were angry about this, some only wondered what was my idea. Some, like the Ukrainian journalist even called me asshole. I was annoyed by different namings for subnational entities. They cause errors, e.g. red links somewhere while the article already exists. I invite all of you to help in finding a good solution for all subnational entities. Tobias Conradi 11:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All what you can unify is syntax of titles. Mikkalai 20:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the term region is quite unclear. Maybe we should avoid it in translations if another english term can be used. That in the US "same" things are named different would not cause harm. Because the other way around it is not clear what are the precise differences between the several english terms to describe subnational units. Tobias Conradi 01:11, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobias Conradi's comments

message: === Umbrella terms ===
Following encompassing terms exist (the articles need to be improved to show relations between these terms!)
*Country subdivision
**may refer to non-administrative entities, e.g. regions of Brazil - i.e. this term has a broader meaning than the above (umbrella term for the umbrella terms)
**used by ISO 3166-2 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 2: Country subdivision code
*Administrative division
**may refer to a part of the government of the country (see administration, e.g. Bush administration)? 
**the US states are not administrative divisions of the United States, so this term cannot be used everywhere.
*Political division
**may refer to divisions by political opinions, parties etc?
all in plural and singular.
====Sections in country articles====
some have the following section:
*Administrative division
*Political division
*Subdivision
====Setpages====
*Administrative division(s) of
*Political division(s) of
*Subdivision(s) of
====Categories====
A lot are in :Category:Subdivisions by country and have Category:Subdivisions of Yland. A lot of the specific sets are at :Category:Provinces, :Category:Counties etc.
====Lists====
*List of subnational entities
====Projects====
*some projects use the term subdivision
**Ukrainian subdivisions
**UK subdivisions (with it's first order descendents using the term too)
=== Specific sets ===
*UA-talk moved to Talk:Subdivisions of Ukraine Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For NL it's only a historical term (Holland, Zeeland, Zutphen). For Latvia I thought district was the preferred term (it's rajons in Latvian). BTW, Markusse is my last name, first name Peter. Markussep 15:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully I will not call Peter with Markus again. Subdivisions_of_Russia#Translation Raion as district is not generelly feasible because okrugs are allready translated as districts. I started Counties of the Netherlands Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: No offence ;-) Actually, this counties of the Netherlands page you made is not necessary. There were some counties (and duchies, bishoprics etc.) in the current Netherlands (and Belgium, France, Germany, Italy etc. etc.) when it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, see also Seventeen Provinces. About Latvia: if there are no okrugs in Latvia I don't see objections against district. But I don't know. Markussep 21:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: What I meant with "you started putting up names" was that you started attributing statements to people, i.e. that I "claim" that you moved those pages. Of course in saying that you moved those pages I mentioned your name first. And if you write I "claim", I can likewise write you "respond". That I did not put up any statistics is self-evident, so if you want to specifically note that fact it implies a significance which is POV and therefore needs to be attributed. The lack of statistics doesn't change the truth that you unilaterally moved hundreds or thousands of pages - how on Earth is that a misrepresentation? Shall we actually count the moves in your contribution history? And the number of moves without complaints is irrelevant. There have been enough complaints to make it clear that you acted inappropriately in trying to push through your preferred format without establishing a consensus for it first. NoPuzzleStranger 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions 

message: *UA-talk moved to Talk:Subdivisions of Ukraine Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For NL it's only a historical term (Holland, Zeeland, Zutphen). For Latvia I thought district was the preferred term (it's rajons in Latvian). BTW, Markusse is my last name, first name Peter. Markussep 15:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully I will not call Peter with Markus again. Subdivisions_of_Russia#Translation Raion as district is not generelly feasible because okrugs are allready translated as districts. I started Counties of the Netherlands Tobias Conradi (Talk) 18:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: No offence ;-) Actually, this counties of the Netherlands page you made is not necessary. There were some counties (and duchies, bishoprics etc.) in the current Netherlands (and Belgium, France, Germany, Italy etc. etc.) when it was part of the Holy Roman Empire, see also Seventeen Provinces. About Latvia: if there are no okrugs in Latvia I don't see objections against district. But I don't know. Markussep 21:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific sets 

message: ====NoPuzzleStranger vs. Tobias Conradi====
#N:...
##
##summary:(it's only "current use" because of Tobias Conradi's unilateral crusade)
#N:This is only current use (and that only because TobiasConradi unilaterally moved hundreds of pages) and not any policy at all.
##
##summary:none
#T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says TobiasConradi unilaterally moved hundreds of pages. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally (defintion needed) moved by Tobias Conradi, those moved by others and those that were not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages.
##
##summary:(→Current use -correct NoPuzzleStranger's statement)
#N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to his "X Province"-type format. User:Tobias Conradi responds that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others and those that were not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages.
##
##summary:none
#T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". 
##
##summary:(→Current use - extend intro)
#N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Tobias Conradi responds that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others, those that were already in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. NoPuzzleStranger responds that anyone doubting his contention should just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by none other than Tobias Conradi. It is in any case uncontested by Tobias Conradi himself that he moved "a lot of pages".
##
##summary:none
#T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". Furthermore NoPuzzleStranger things instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. This however would not show unilaterelity.
##
##summary:(==current use==extend intro, missing stats are not a claim, but a fact.)
##Furthermore adding: 
### pages that were not moved in 2005 may be marked: [not moved in 2005]
### pages that were moved may be marked: [moved by User 2005-month-day]
##then Tobias starts to collect data about move history
#N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Tobias Conradi complains that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is however uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". NoPuzzleStranger thinks instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. Tobias Conradi contends that this however would not show unilaterality. However, the talk page of this very page contains numerous complaints by people about unilateral moves by Tobias Conradi.
##
##summary:none
#T:Revert 
##
##summary: (→Current use - remove last statement of NoPuzzleStrange - Tobias was not complaining about anything)
#T:complains at User_talk:NoPuzzleStranger, about his lies and misrepresentations
#N:Revert
## 
##summary:(rv, if you don't want to complain, then remove your statement entirely, because it's otherwise irrelevant)
#T:Revert
## 
##summary:(rv, because User:NoPuzzleStranger is lying and misrepresenting)
#T: adding with typo
##
##summary: (→Current use - He also claims the talk page of this project page would show unilateral moves. It is uncontested that unlateral were done by Tobias.)
#T:correct last typo, now: User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". --------------- Furthermore NoPuzzleStranger thinks instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. This however would not show unilaterelity. He also claims the talk page of this project page would show unilateral moves. It is uncontested that unilateral move were done by Tobias.
##
##summary:(→Current use - typo)
#N:looks like revert? ##
##summary:none
#T:Revert
##summary:(rv, this is not the talk page. Things like "he responds" do not belong here. BTW: existense of some conflicts on the talk page, does not show what you claimed. Look at number of sets. this is bigger)
#N:Revert 
##summary:(rv, you started responding that way, and you started putting up names; if you want to write that I "claim", then I can also write you "respond")
#T:Revert
##summary: (rv, state facts write like in encyclopedia, not talk style, do not misrepresent. I have no problem to see my name.)
#N:looks like revert?
##summary:(then what's your problem? what is misrepresented? those are all facts)
#Tobias now responds here: My problems are your lies and misrepresentations. It is not very helpfull to write "Tobias responds". When I wrote NoPuzzleStranger claims than it was because it was just a claim of you. At first I thought about "someone people claim" but it was only you, so I thought its helpful to the reader who said this. You are a lier or have bad memory. I was not the one that started putting up names as you said. It was YOU. There was a claim, I did not just want to delete it, I had no problem to see my name. But I did not like the misrepresentation in your first statement. That's why I called it claim. And than I added the fact that there where no statistics for what you claimed. I thought you might add them. But instead you wrote this "Tobias responds style" and write it is enought to check randomly Whatlinkshere-pages. I left this because that's a good hint for the reader. I also added that it is uncontested that I moved lots of page and that unilateral moves by me happenend. But remember what you wrote? You wrote: Tobias unilaterally moved hundred maybe thousand pages. That's a different thing, afaik that's misrepresentation. You still not provided statistics for this, while I did a lot of work to provide some stats. Now you wrote unilateral acts can be deducted from the talk page. Yes there where complaints about moves. Yes there where unilateral moves. This is uncontested. But did you see the number of moves without complaints? Did you see the pages that where not moved at all? Did you see where from some of these page where moved? You were trying to discredit User:Tobias Conradi, with lies (maybe bad memory) and misrepresentation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant with "you started putting up names" was that you started attributing statements to people, i.e. that I "claim" that you moved those pages. Of course in saying that you moved those pages I mentioned your name first. And if you write I "claim", I can likewise write you "respond". That I did not put up any statistics is self-evident, so if you want to specifically note that fact it implies a significance which is POV and therefore needs to be attributed. The lack of statistics doesn't change the truth that you unilaterally moved hundreds or thousands of pages - how on Earth is that a misrepresentation? Shall we actually count the moves in your contribution history? And the number of moves without complaints is irrelevant. There have been enough complaints to make it clear that you acted inappropriately in trying to push through your preferred format without establishing a consensus for it first. NoPuzzleStranger 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: #N:...
##
##summary:(it's only "current use" because of Tobias Conradi's unilateral crusade)
#N:This is only current use (and that only because TobiasConradi unilaterally moved hundreds of pages) and not any policy at all.
##
##summary:none
#T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says TobiasConradi unilaterally moved hundreds of pages. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally (defintion needed) moved by Tobias Conradi, those moved by others and those that were not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages.
##
##summary:(→Current use -correct NoPuzzleStranger's statement)
#N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to his "X Province"-type format. User:Tobias Conradi responds that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others and those that were not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages.
##
##summary:none
#T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". 
##
##summary:(→Current use - extend intro)
#N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Tobias Conradi responds that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by him, those moved by others, those that were already in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. NoPuzzleStranger responds that anyone doubting his contention should just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by none other than Tobias Conradi. It is in any case uncontested by Tobias Conradi himself that he moved "a lot of pages".
##
##summary:none
#T:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". Furthermore NoPuzzleStranger things instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. This however would not show unilaterelity.
##
##summary:(==current use==extend intro, missing stats are not a claim, but a fact.)
##Furthermore adding: 
### pages that were not moved in 2005 may be marked: [not moved in 2005]
### pages that were moved may be marked: [moved by User 2005-month-day]
##then Tobias starts to collect data about move history
#N:User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Tobias Conradi complains that statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is however uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". NoPuzzleStranger thinks instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. Tobias Conradi contends that this however would not show unilaterality. However, the talk page of this very page contains numerous complaints by people about unilateral moves by Tobias Conradi.
##
##summary:none
#T:Revert 
##
##summary: (→Current use - remove last statement of NoPuzzleStrange - Tobias was not complaining about anything)
#T:complains at User_talk:NoPuzzleStranger, about his lies and misrepresentations
#N:Revert
## 
##summary:(rv, if you don't want to complain, then remove your statement entirely, because it's otherwise irrelevant)
#T:Revert
## 
##summary:(rv, because User:NoPuzzleStranger is lying and misrepresenting)
#T: adding with typo
##
##summary: (→Current use - He also claims the talk page of this project page would show unilateral moves. It is uncontested that unlateral were done by Tobias.)
#T:correct last typo, now: User:NoPuzzleStranger claims the only reason for the "current use" is that, as he says, User:Tobias Conradi unilaterally (i.e. without establishing a consensus first) moved hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages to the "X Entity"-type format. Statistics for this claim showing pages unilaterally moved by Tobias, those moved by others, those that were allready in "X Entity"-format and those not moved at all are missing. It is uncontested that Tobias Conradi moved a lot of pages from "X entity", "X (entity)", "Entity of X". --------------- Furthermore NoPuzzleStranger thinks instead of statistics it is enough to just pick a random sample of "X Entity" articles, check "What's links here", find the redirects from "X entity", "X (entity)", or "Entity of X", and look at the history of those redirects, which should prove that the vast majority of them were moved to "X Entity" by Tobias Conradi. This however would not show unilaterelity. He also claims the talk page of this project page would show unilateral moves. It is uncontested that unilateral move were done by Tobias.
##
##summary:(→Current use - typo)
#N:looks like revert? ##
##summary:none
#T:Revert
##summary:(rv, this is not the talk page. Things like "he responds" do not belong here. BTW: existense of some conflicts on the talk page, does not show what you claimed. Look at number of sets. this is bigger)
#N:Revert 
##summary:(rv, you started responding that way, and you started putting up names; if you want to write that I "claim", then I can also write you "respond")
#T:Revert
##summary: (rv, state facts write like in encyclopedia, not talk style, do not misrepresent. I have no problem to see my name.)
#N:looks like revert?
##summary:(then what's your problem? what is misrepresented? those are all facts)
#Tobias now responds here: My problems are your lies and misrepresentations. It is not very helpfull to write "Tobias responds". When I wrote NoPuzzleStranger claims than it was because it was just a claim of you. At first I thought about "someone people claim" but it was only you, so I thought its helpful to the reader who said this. You are a lier or have bad memory. I was not the one that started putting up names as you said. It was YOU. There was a claim, I did not just want to delete it, I had no problem to see my name. But I did not like the misrepresentation in your first statement. That's why I called it claim. And than I added the fact that there where no statistics for what you claimed. I thought you might add them. But instead you wrote this "Tobias responds style" and write it is enought to check randomly Whatlinkshere-pages. I left this because that's a good hint for the reader. I also added that it is uncontested that I moved lots of page and that unilateral moves by me happenend. But remember what you wrote? You wrote: Tobias unilaterally moved hundred maybe thousand pages. That's a different thing, afaik that's misrepresentation. You still not provided statistics for this, while I did a lot of work to provide some stats. Now you wrote unilateral acts can be deducted from the talk page. Yes there where complaints about moves. Yes there where unilateral moves. This is uncontested. But did you see the number of moves without complaints? Did you see the pages that where not moved at all? Did you see where from some of these page where moved? You were trying to discredit User:Tobias Conradi, with lies (maybe bad memory) and misrepresentation. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What I meant with "you started putting up names" was that you started attributing statements to people, i.e. that I "claim" that you moved those pages. Of course in saying that you moved those pages I mentioned your name first. And if you write I "claim", I can likewise write you "respond". That I did not put up any statistics is self-evident, so if you want to specifically note that fact it implies a significance which is POV and therefore needs to be attributed. The lack of statistics doesn't change the truth that you unilaterally moved hundreds or thousands of pages - how on Earth is that a misrepresentation? Shall we actually count the moves in your contribution history? And the number of moves without complaints is irrelevant. There have been enough complaints to make it clear that you acted inappropriately in trying to push through your preferred format without establishing a consensus for it first. NoPuzzleStranger 01:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NoPuzzleStranger vs. Tobias Conradi

message: Please see also: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). Let's get this resolved once and for all. –Hajor 14:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussion

message: Hey all,
A discussion has erupted at Categoreis for deletion here, about the naming of the categories on administrative/political divisions within sovereign states. It will probably have some repurcussions on this page, so feel free to join in.
Greets, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have started a thread on renaming the categories on Category talk:Subdivisions by country. Lets discuss renaming the categories there, we can do the rest later if necessary. Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 08:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Categories 

message: The administrative divisions of India as opposed to the military divisions, are one kind of subdivisions of India. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes; as discussed above, the intention is to create a "master" article Subdivisions of India, to which Administrative divisions of India ("administrative division" ≠ the Indian administrative division known as a "division"), Military divisions of India, Electoral divisions of India (possibly) etc are linked. Similarly for other countries. Hope this okay...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: India

message: To have "Administrative divisions" on two levels is IMO not very good.
*Subdivisions of India
**Administrative (you suggest Administrative divisions)
***States
***Territorries
***(Administrative) divisions
**Electoral
**...
*Subdivisions of X
**Administrative
***(Administrative) regions
***Administrative counties
**other
***regions
***counties
The "military divisions" per Division (military) are not part of this. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you might've misunderstood my use of "administrative division"; apologies if it's not been clear. No country, so far as I've found, uses "administrative division" (or its translation) as a label for one of its national administrative divisions; the closest approach, I believe, is India with its "divisions". As regards the general case (starting from "Subdivisions of X"), I'd say the structure resembles:
* Subdivisions of X
** Administrative divisions of X
*** 
*** 
*** 
*** 
** Electoral divisions of X
*** 
** Developmental divisions (regions?) of X...?
*** 
** Ecological divisions (areas?) of X...?
*** 
** etc etc
Yours, David (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Hierarchy) 

message: Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I've added a thread to the talk page there. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Country subdivision]] 

message: *http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Autonomous_area&diff=73680304&oldid=72565727
I disagree with move Autonomous entity -> Autonomous area.
above you want "division" to be the top level. Here you want area. Area sometimes is one type already. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry not to be clearer; I don't think any one term / "entity" / type of national admin division is top-level. If "autonomous area" is already being used by a country to describe one of its admin divisions, I must've overlooked it – apologies! – please indicate where so I may update various locations accordingly. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not say that "autonomous area" is used allready. I was only talking about "Area". If Area shall be top here, then why don't use Administrative area, Elecoral area etc. I started Area (subnational entity), help welcome. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, okay; I think I understand. My suggestion is that unlike "Local Government Area", "insular area", etc, "autonomous area" is not used by any country to identify any of its types of administrative division – so far as I'm aware! – so it's free to be used generically as above. Regards, David (talk) 09:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this is exactly what i dont like. We should use one "topterm". And "Autonomous topterm" would then be the topterm for the autonomous administrative territorial units. According to how we used it before, this would be "Autonomous (country) subdivisions". Or like you did it "Autonomous administrative divisions". Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, if not "autonomous area" due to Area (subnational entity); and not "autonomous entity" – or "[anything] entity" – as this is too abstracted (e.g. I'd like to think I'm an "autonomous entity" (!); alternatively, a company could be a "subnational entity"), then is there another term that could be used...?  Thanks, David (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  ...I suppose "autonomous division" could be used as a foreshortened form of "autonomous administrative division" (India et al notwithstanding); and "subnational division" rather than "subnational entity"...?  David (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pls read #Umbrella_terms -> subnational. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taken another look, but am still not convinced by "political division" (e.g. its article has no sources/references; this time I've remembered to add {references}!) and "subnational entity" (still) redirects to "administrative division", i.e. there's nothing in the article to indicate that "subnational entity" should be a preferred term...?  Yours, David (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: My concern, however, is that "subnational entity" is too abstracted for the sake of a general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia; there may be a significant minority of people who might think it refers to companies, organiz/sations etc, rather than to administrative divisions. My continued thanks for your feedback, David (talk) 09:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes entity can have really have other meanings. so does area. In the area of biology .... But Autonomous area could be ok, if standing alone. BTW, we should look how we integrate with things like continents and supra country regions, Balkans, EU, Brit. Commonwealth. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re integrating continents etc: not yet, please – I'd first like to sort out / understand terms!  What is the use of "area" in biology that you have in mind...?  (Does it identify some kind of space or region, even if metaphorical?  Unlike "area", "entity" does not necessarily imply a space or region...)  Yours, David (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not: areas in biology, but: biology is one area/field, like chemistry. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 10:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh, understood; thanks. Well, I'd say "area" in "autonomous area" implies space or region far more strongly than "entity" in "autonomous entity"... Yours, David (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for this info! Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seconded (with added "Arrg!")  Chuckle, David Kernow (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Autonomous entity/area" / Generic terms 

message: and subcategories listed below
: :Category:Subnational entities to Category:Country subdivisons
:: Rationale: A "subnational entity" might be something such as a company, organiz/sation etc; suggest "subnational division" gives clearer indication as to category's contents and subject area.
Similarly,
: :Category:Lists of subnational entities to Category:Lists of country subdivisions
:: :Category:Ranked lists of subnational entities to Category:Ranked lists of country subdivisions
::: :Category:Subnational entities in Europe to Category:Country subdivisions of Europe
::: :Category:Subnational entities in the Americas to Category:Country subdivisions of the Americas
Also,
: :Category:Subdivisions of historic countries to :Category:Subdivisions of former countries and empires
:: Rationale: Describes contents more accurately.
Yes, I aim to replace "subnational entity/ies" in article titles with "country division/s" or similar rephrasings; it's all part of a push via WP:WPCSub to clarify the distinctions between and nomenclature used for this topic.
</div>
Yours, David Kernow (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: looks all very good. AFAICS each rename will increase consistency. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry not to see your reply until now – somehow I missed your editing this page and your talk page in order to transfer it!  Glad you agree this is a step forward in consistency; I'll now copy the above to CfD. Yours, David (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Subnational entities

message: Move help needed, anybody watching?
*Suchitepéquez -> Suchitepéquez Department, see :Category:Departments of Guatemala
*Gutu (District) -> Gutu District, see :Category:Districts of Zimbabwe
*Nkayi (District) -> Nkayi District, see :Category:Districts of Zimbabwe
*Lori (province) -> Lori Province, see :Category:Provinces of Armenia
*Hundred (administrative division) -> Hundred (country subdivision), see :Category:Country subdivisions
*Ward (division) -> Ward (country subdivision), see :Category:Country subdivisions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TopoCode (talk • contribs) 13:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of these, with the exception of Nkayi (District), as there already is an article at Nkayi District, and it's about a district in the Republic of Congo.  Not sure what the best way to disambiguate between the two is, so someone else might want to take care of this.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Move request