Misplaced Pages

:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 15: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:08, 16 April 2006 editWilliam Allen Simpson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,485 edits →Subdivisions to appropriate divisions: Unitary authorities← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:27, 9 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(81 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{| width = "100%" {| width = "100%"
|- |-
! width="50%" align="left" | <font color="gray">&lt;</font> ] ! width="50%" align="left" | <span style="color:gray;">&lt;</span> ]
! width="50%" align="right" | ] <font color="gray">&gt;</font> ! width="50%" align="right" | ] <span style="color:gray;">&gt;</span>
|} |}
</div></noinclude> </div></noinclude>
Line 11: Line 11:


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Rename''' - ] 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The old name was ugly & awkward. The new name's a big improvement, but still not perfect. &mdash;'']'' 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC) The old name was ugly & awkward. The new name's a big improvement, but still not perfect. &mdash;'']'' 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>
==== Subdivisions to appropriate divisions ====

====<big>Subdivisions to appropriate divisions</big>====
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''no consensus to rename'''. ] 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

'''note from closing admin''' - I hate to see so much wasted effort in bringing the entire list here (and tagging all the categories?), but really there is no clear indication either way. If I take just the current discussion, it is 3 sup to 4 opp. If I take the current comments and add them to the previous (discounting those who commented on both, their votes didn't change) I still get ~11 sup to 6 opp. I suggest following up at ] or another forum of your choosing because I DO think this is an important classification problem and should be resolved. Feel free to contact me if you want my advice. --] 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "]" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is ] or ]. In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "]" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is ] or ].
Line 20: Line 32:


* ] to existing ] * ] to existing ]

---- ----
:''These are the current subcategories to be included in ]:'' :''These are the current subcategories to be included in ]:''
Line 152: Line 165:
* ] to ] * ] to ]
**Main article is ] **Main article is ]
**A related article is ] that should be renamed ] **See related ] that should be renamed ]
* ] to ] * ] to ]
**Main article was originally ], but by examination of the content does not appear to be properly named, an expert in the region may be needed for verification. **Main article was originally ], but by examination of the content does not appear to be properly named, an expert in the region may be needed for verification.
Line 223: Line 236:
*] to ] *] to ]
**Main article was originally ], then moved to ], but should be renamed (standard plural) "Political divisions ..." instead. **Main article was originally ], then moved to ], but should be renamed (standard plural) "Political divisions ..." instead.
**Template is {{tl|Political Divisions of Venezuela}}, but should be moved to (standard capitalization) "Political divisions ..." instead. **Template is {{tl|Administrative divisions of Venezuela}}, but should be moved to (standard capitalization) "Political divisions ..." instead.

:''However, since there are so few, many have expressed a preference for merging the categories. As an alternative, these could be included in ] with careful naming of their respective subcategories. Please indicate your preference respecting these alternatives:''

*] to ]
*] to ]
*] to ]
*] to ]
*] to ]

{{hidden begin|title=Old Debate|bodyalign=left|titlealign=left|titlebackground=#ffffff|bodybackground=#ffffff}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
The old debate here is '''Closed''', and left here for historical context, and to mitigate somewhat the need for people to repeat arguments that have already been made. Please resume a new, fresh debate below the closed off section. - ] 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


---- ----
Line 229: Line 254:
#'''Support''' as nominator --] 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Support''' as nominator --] 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Prefer Administrative divisions.''' In ''much more'' common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--] 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Prefer Administrative divisions.''' In ''much more'' common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--] 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Conditional support'''. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating ] doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. ]]] ] 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Conditional support'''. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating ] doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. ]]] ] 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions" as per ], and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). ] 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions" as per ], and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). ] 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions". "Political divisions by country" sounds like it is about political strife. ] 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions". "Political divisions by country" sounds like it is about political strife. ] 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions" ] 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Prefer''' support use of "Administrative divisions" to rename cat pages listed in the nomination] 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Subdivision is an ambiguous and confusing term. '''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions". In addition, in Canada, ] could also refer to different types of municipalities. ] 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Support'''. Subdivision is an ambiguous and confusing term. '''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions". In addition, in Canada, ] could also refer to different types of municipalities. ] 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
#'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions" as per Carina22 ] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC) #'''Prefer''' "Administrative divisions" as per Carina22 ] <sup>]</sup> 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 246: Line 271:
* '''Abstain''' for time being, although currently I prefer "Administrative divisions" as per ]. ] 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC) * '''Abstain''' for time being, although currently I prefer "Administrative divisions" as per ]. ] 18:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' -- my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --] 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment'''{{spaced ndash}}my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --] 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment'''. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. ]]] ] 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC) **'''Comment'''. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. ]]] ] 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
***'''Comment'''. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one ] with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -] 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC) ***'''Comment'''. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one ] with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -] 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
***'''comment''' terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (], ], ], Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. ] ] 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC) ***'''comment''' terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (], ], ], Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. ] ] 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 258: Line 283:
****** what do I intend? Do I intend to mean administrative divisions and political divisions only? ] ] 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ****** what do I intend? Do I intend to mean administrative divisions and political divisions only? ] ] 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' -- ] is over. Conradi lost the straw poll there many months ago (last August), refused to conform to consensus, followed by RfC on him (in December), mediation, RfC on the proposed guideline itself, and final incorporation into ] in January. --] 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment'''{{spaced ndash}}] is over. Conradi lost the straw poll there many months ago (last August), refused to conform to consensus, followed by RfC on him (in December), mediation, RfC on the proposed guideline itself, and final incorporation into ] in January. --] 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
**'''comment''' would be nice if you link the RfC and the accusations you made there. And also to explain your constant re-insersts of wrong facts and please repeat the judgement that I only speak poor english. I like this, especially if it comes from you. William, you are so nice towards me, from now on you can call me Tobias, which is my firstname (same word order in German as in English). ] ] 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC) **'''comment''' would be nice if you link the RfC and the accusations you made there. And also to explain your constant re-insersts of wrong facts and please repeat the judgement that I only speak poor english. I like this, especially if it comes from you. William, you are so nice towards me, from now on you can call me Tobias, which is my firstname (same word order in German as in English). ] ] 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' -- Agree with Luigizanasi. Yesterday, Conradi just moved and renamed dozens of pages to conform to his newly made-up term "Country subdivisions", that he found in '''one''' ISO document. Heck, he renamed his own {{tl|subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. The world is not "organized" and "logical". This is an encyclopedia! It should document reality, in the accepted and established political science terminology, not try to force the entire world into a mold. --] 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment'''{{spaced ndash}}Agree with Luigizanasi. Yesterday, Conradi just moved and renamed dozens of pages to conform to his newly made-up term "Country subdivisions", that he found in '''one''' ISO document. Heck, he renamed his own {{tl|subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto everything. The world is not "organized" and "logical". This is an encyclopedia! It should document reality, in the accepted and established political science terminology, not try to force the entire world into a mold. --] 09:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
**I did found the term actually in '''three''' ISO documents. How is the term newly made up if it exists in three ISO documents? Why is it ''my'' term? You can also check the history of all the Subdivisions of XY articles and categories - you may find some hints that the term was used for example in ] when ] was created. Can you tell me how many ]s of pages I moved ''and'' renamed in your opinion? ] ] 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC) **I did found the term actually in '''three''' ISO documents. How is the term newly made up if it exists in three ISO documents? Why is it ''my'' term? You can also check the history of all the Subdivisions of XY articles and categories - you may find some hints that the term was used for example in ] when ] was created. Can you tell me how many ]s of pages I moved ''and'' renamed in your opinion? ] ] 15:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
***'''Comment'''. Near as I can tell, ] uses ''Country subdivision'', not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be ]. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. ] 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC) ***'''Comment'''. Near as I can tell, ] uses ''Country subdivision'', not "Subdivision" on its own. If we are to use the awkward ISO terminology, the it should be ]. "Sudivision" on its own & by itself does not convey the meaning of administrative/political divisions/subdivisions / sub-national entities. When I see "Subdivisions of Foo", I take it to mean minor suburban neighbourhouds in Foo. ] 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 269: Line 294:
**William's statement ''Heck, he ]d his ] {{tl|subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto ].'' - is wrong in at least two aspects, maybe three. ] ] 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC) **William's statement ''Heck, he ]d his ] {{tl|subnational entity}}, that he's been sticking onto ].'' - is wrong in at least two aspects, maybe three. ] ] 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


*'''Comment''' -- there are two levels, please read the articles (] and ]). It is possible to split the category into two levels, too; ] with sub-]. China and several other countries are already organized this way. --] 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment'''{{spaced ndash}}there are two levels, please read the articles (] and ]). It is possible to split the category into two levels, too; ] with sub-]. China and several other countries are already organized this way. --] 09:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
**'''comment''' this is not true. There are ] ] and ] (missing an i) - were PRC and ROC are regarded as two countries in WP. What are the ''several'' other countries you claim are organized this way? ] ] 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC) **'''comment''' this is not true. There are ] ] and ] (missing an i) - were PRC and ROC are regarded as two countries in WP. What are the ''several'' other countries you claim are organized this way? ] ] 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


Line 276: Line 301:
** the latter was created by William on 2006-04-13 --- ] ] 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ** the latter was created by William on 2006-04-13 --- ] ] 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


***William wants to hide the fact again: it was only moved here April 7, 2006 by him ] -- ] ] 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ***William wants to hide the fact again: it was only moved here April 7, 2006 by him ] {{spaced ndash}}] ] 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
****According to the move logs, each time I've moved this was over an existing '''redirect''' left over from a previous move: ****According to the move logs, each time I've moved this was over an existing '''redirect''' left over from a previous move:
***** 2006-01-07 21:10:34 Asim Led moved ] to ] ''(Based on new title for category in original article.)'' ***** 2006-01-07 21:10:34 Asim Led moved ] to ] ''(Based on new title for category in original article.)''
Line 285: Line 310:
****:--] 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ****:--] 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


***Seems as William wants to hide this fact again: was moved here on April 7, 2006 by ] -- ] ] 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ***Seems as William wants to hide this fact again: was moved here on April 7, 2006 by ] {{spaced ndash}}] ] 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
****According to the move logs, each time I've moved this was over an existing '''redirect''' left over from a previous move: ****According to the move logs, each time I've moved this was over an existing '''redirect''' left over from a previous move:
***** The move log history does not go back to the previous move, but I'm fairly sure it was done by Conradi, as so many others. ***** The move log history does not go back to the previous move, but I'm fairly sure it was done by Conradi, as so many others.
Line 293: Line 318:
****I'm really tired of being called a liar by Conradi! ****I'm really tired of being called a liar by Conradi!
****:--] 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) ****:--] 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
*****Willy, stop hiding facts there were made public already during last discussion. BTW where did call you liar during this discussion? Once again a false claim by you or can you provide evidence? ] ] 20:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
******"hiding facts", "This is NOT true", "false claim". While you may not have used the word "liar", you are doing a great politician's job of coming as close as you can to it without actually using the word. Please don't act surprised when he is upset by such tactics. - ] 19:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


*'''Comment''': Prefer ''administrative divisions'' to ''political divisions''. Nevertheless it will exclude ''constituencies'' and ''ceremonial counties'', for instance, which are also ''subdivisions''. &mdash; ]] 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Comment''': Prefer ''administrative divisions'' to ''political divisions''. Nevertheless it will exclude ''constituencies'' and ''ceremonial counties'', for instance, which are also ''subdivisions''.{{spaced ndash}}]] 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''comment''' don't split the subdivision cats into "Administrative divisions" and "Political divisions".
...is a problematic term for a cat name that deals with territories in one country:
**the term "]" itself is used for ]s in India, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The ] were dissolved. The rename would result in the Administrative ] being a subcategory of Administrative divisions of India
**Administrative division can also apply to non-territorial divisioning (of government areas, i.e. Defense, Interior)
**Administrative division would exclude other kinds of country subdivisions as mentioned by Instantnood.
**see ] to find that Willy's claim that "subdivision" in geography refers allways to ]s is not that clear. It seems this is US-real estate centric point of view.
*Let's discuss the matter at ] before voting again{{spaced ndash}}] ] 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
</div>
{{hidden end}}

===== new debate =====
:'''Comment''' - To address the concerns over the reuse of the old debate/votes, I am closing off the above sections. These will be considered as historical reference only. Please begin the debate anew below. Notices will be sent out to all who participated in the original debate. Pro, Con, and Neutral. Please debate below the proposal as it is now on the table. The arguments above over whether the relisting is partial or full are now moot. This is a new debate, about the current proposal. - ] 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support'''{{spaced ndash}}as nominator{{spaced ndash}}asking that folks not alter the listing, but instead give clean, clear, and cogent descriptions here, instead. There are several remaining technical questions (the same as the previous listing on April 4) to be addressed by experts in the particular regions. --] 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose:''' The current ] is better than ] as not all of the divisions listed there are administrative. Some are geographical, some are political, and some are administrative. Some of the geographical overlap multiple administrative and political divisions. Changing the current name would only confuse things unless a better name can be thought up. --] 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
**These are terms of art. Did you read the ] definition? (Please ignore the recent Conradi changes to influence the debate, they are often inaccurate.)
**#It is my understanding that Japan is a sovereign state.
**#There are no separate ] within Japan, so there are no ]s. (Conradi keeps changing the definition from ] to ], so ignore that page for now, you'll need a textbook instead.)
**#According to , the top level administrative division, 47 prefectures, are not sovereign states. So, these are not "political division" of Japan.
**#Looking carefully at the pages in the category, each of these articles appear to be ]s. Even regions overlapping cities and towns are actually administrative.
**#Without a formal definition for ] or ], it does not appear either of these apply to Japan.
***Please remember to use terms of art, not arbitrary wikipedian phraseology.
***:--] 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
****What do you mean by "These are terms of art"? That sentence makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about subnational divisions within countries, not painting or pottery.
***#Yes, Japan is a sovereign state, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
***#The ] consider themselves as separate from the whole of Japan, though the number of Ainu who aren't integrated into the rest of Japan is rapidly dwindling.
***#As for the prefectures not being considered '']s'', did you read the definition? Prefectures clearly qualify as political divisions, as they are at the same level as states in the United States. Based on the definition on that page, an "administrative division" is simply a smaller "political division".
***#] covers many divisions in Japan that are geographic, not political or administrative. These geographic regions often include pieces of multiple political and/or administrative divisions, similar to the ], the ], or ]. These areas are absolutely not adminsitrative divisions, and in many cases aren't even subnational divisions as they encompass multiple nations.
***#Perhaps we should all put our heads together and come up with a ] article. It seems like we need one based on the discussion here.
****Again, I have no idea what you mean when you say to "use terms of art." What does that even mean in this context? --] 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*****Apparently, there is an English language problem here. Please read ]. These are ] and ] terms.
*****#It is the basis of ].
*****#I see no articles or subcategories of ] regarding ]. Do the ] have their own sovereign state?
*****#Pardon my ignorance. Since ] currently declares that the "] of 1947" governs administrative divisions ("established most of Japan's contemporary local government structures"), perhaps the articles are incorrect and must be re-written. Can each prefecture define its own laws? Independently change the names of cities, counties, and districts? Reorganize its internal borders without consulting the government of Japan? Enjoy sovereign immunity from suit by the residents of other prefectures? (Without these qualities, among many others, prefectures are not "the same level" as states in the United States.)
*****#It is entirely possible that ] is wrongly categorized, and belongs in ].
*****#], it is not up to anybody here to "put our heads together". Please cite your academic sources for these previously unknown terms of art.
*****Please remember to use terms of art, not arbitrary wikipedian phraseology.
*****:--] 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
******I can see why everyone here enjoys "talking" with you so much. You make me feel warm and fuzzy all over...xp. There's no English language problem here as I've spoken English all of my life and have no problem using ''common'' terms. "Term of art" is hardly in common usage, and I'd never seen it used until I read it here. Since you didn't include a wikilink the first time you used it, I had no idea it was even described here. And this "arbitrary wikipedian phraseology" qualifies as "terms of art" based on the opening sentence of that article, which states that "terms of art" are "the specialised vocabulary of a profession '''or of some other activity to which a group of people dedicate significant parts of their lives'''." (emphasis added)
******Prefectures of Japan can do all of those things you describe (though their names for "cities, counties, and districts" aren't quite the same. There are some prefectural laws established in Japan, though they are very few given that the police are generally administrated at the national level. Keep in mind that Japan is slightly larger than the state of California, so there's not such a huge area to govern. Therefore, most of the laws and ordinances are done at the national and city/town/village level. The prefectures each have their own school systems (like a state-wide school district, if you will), though city and private schools also exist.
******About which specific "terms of art" are you inquiring? --] 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

****Looking more carfully would have revealed to Willy that the region article states the regions are not official. How can they be administrative then?
****Willy once again makes a claim without evidence, I cannot see where I changed the definition of ''], furthermore Willy wrote this term in brackets next to the term ] - so I am not sure to which term he wanted to refer.'' Maybe Willy can provide more background .] ] 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC), changed words in italics ] ] 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''
*#don't split into Administrative divisions and Political divisions
*#Some ] are neither administrative nor political, see Instantnood and Nihonjoe.
*#the term "]" is used specific country subdivisions in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and historicly Pakistan. The rename would result in the Administrative divisions of India being a subcategory of Administrative divisions of India
*#Administrative division can also apply to non-territorial divisioning (of government occupation areas, i.e. Defense, Interior)
*#see ] to find that Willy's claim that "subdivision" in geography refers allways to ]s is not true. It seems this is an US / real estate centric point of view.
*#The move is really is mass move. If renames are necessary, they should be taken with more care. It effects not only more than 100 categories, more than 100 articles pages, templates and in the end Wikiprojects that use the name. Minister of war started a discussion at: ], furthermore there is a corresponding ] which Willy knows. ] ] 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Comment'''{{spaced ndash}}again, as I have elsewhere, I object to the abusive namecalling, and derogatory diminuative form of my name. Since Conradi has persisted, I will again initiate separate proceedings against him. Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe. It appears to be nearly identical to his last comment in the closed portion of the debate.
*:--] 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**If you would have choosen a shorter user name I would maybe write it in full. You don't write my full name neither. You object to abusive name calling? What do you refer to? Have fun with your separate "proceedings". What will they be? Sending missiles to Berlin? You seem to be a little bit unrelaxed. What do you mean by diatribe as mentioned in the edit summary? I remember you classified my english at least two times as of minor quality. It seems you really speak a different english to mine. And your distance to facts seems to be bigger. Because you claim and claim and claim, but if asked for backgound obstain, obstain, obstain.
**Let's be productive on content. Let's dicuss at project page and the talk page that Minister of War started. ] ] 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''comment'''. from what s come up thus far, the phrase "subnational divisions" works best, allowing for inclusion of non-administrative yet recognized areas that may exist within a sovereign country ] 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**comment{{spaced ndash}}just a note: we had ] as main article until William moved it to ]. depending on the concept of nation, a sub-national entity can in fact be a national entity, compare the Uhigur A.R. of China or the autonomous entities of Russia or the ] of Canada. ] ] 04:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Support''', although I would prefer '''<nowiki>Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo</nowiki>''' to avoid wrangling over what is a political vs administrative. '''Subnational divisions of Foo''' would also be OK per ]. Subdivisions has got to go, unless we preface it with what kind of subdivision (i.e. political or administrative). ] 06:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**I would be amenable to using the term "administrative division" for everything (the CIA World Factbook does), however:
**#that is sometimes considered too US Centric (probably because of the CIA) and therefore politically incorrect.
**#Several areas of the world seem to pursue (as in fighting wars over) their states' political autonomy (see the five listed above).
**#The term "subnational" is already in use for another purpose, such as disputed areas of Armenia and Kurdistan.
**#The term "subnational" is rarely used in the US, as we have independent nations that coexist with states by treaty (indigenous populations).
**#My parents still talk about a skirmish over ]al identity (called WWII) overseas, and the horrors of ]. Therefore, the term ] is frequently replaced by ].
**:--] 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. Prefer a single term for all categories. Otherwise we risk discussing whether the ] have political or Administrative divisions. Subnational divisions as noted above is a way to achieve uniformity. Also, two additional points: 1) Why are we not having this discussion on ] as I proposed last time? If we're just going to vote over this there is probably no consensus. If we discuss it, we might reach one. Also, the clutter we're creating on this page is astounding. 2) I suggest you ''both'', Tobias and William, have a cup of ], this is really unbecoming. ]]] ] 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
**I would be amenable to using the term "administrative division" for everything (the CIA World Factbook does), however:
**#There is simply no question whether the Netherlands are sovereign, or consist of federally independent sovereign states. This is a ].
**#We had a strong consensus last time, until Conradi brought 3 more folks here at the last moment.
**#A single person (Conradi) created most of these categories, without following the established process.
**#According to the findings of his RfC, "Unfortunately he has poor English skills and has lost track of things since he was in a particularly ugly dispute. He sounds like a newbie, but that can't be assigned here since he has over 17,000 edits."
**#If you are accusing me of something, please be specific. I spent a lot of time gathering the data, and now more time explaining basic definitions here. ], it is an encyclopedia.
**:--] 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
***My short answer: If we were to use one single term, I certainly will support. I'd prefer the term "subnational" (despite the fact that nation != country, the term subnational is the most often used, and unambiguous in itself). Administrative divisions also sounds good.
***My long answer:
***#You're missing my point. The Netherlands is not federal, but ''does'' have ''Political'' Divisions (with a somewhat federal history I might add). Distinguishing between "Political" and "Administrative" will only lead to long discussion on what the difference it is. The fact that you have clearly delineated ideas of how those lines run, does not mean they are apparent from the terms themselves. They would require clarification, which would lead to all kinds of horrible discussions; on ] but also elsewhere.
***#I disagreed with your use of different terms then, as I do now. Furthermore, Tobias is free to bring in interested people, as are you, as am I.
***#Could be. But I seemed to remember him being part of ], so I assumed good faith in that it had been discussed there.
***# & 5. I dislike placing any derogatory remarks on any user, even if (''especially'' if) he admits to his faults. Especially your encouragements for people to "Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe" are particularly ]. I can assess arguments quite well on my own. ]]] ] 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
****Short reply: since one (1) prominent source (the "CIA World Factbook") uses "Administrative divisions" for US States, as well as China and Venezuela, I will support using only "Administrative divisions", and will list that alternative in the proposal.
****Long reply:
****#All divisions of government are ''political''. Terms of art are often confusing to folks not familiar with them. Try "strange quark".
****#No, folks have been suspended by ArbComm for vote trolling.
****#That may not have been a good assumption. The only for "]" is Misplaced Pages itself. Heavy sigh. Referencing Misplaced Pages will actually lose you points on your papers for State and Local Government here at the "Harvard of the Midwest" (hint: I've discussed it with the professor across the dinner table, and she's notable enough for her own Misplaced Pages entry). I'm just trying to improve the state of affairs....
****# & 5. It is best to bring the issues to light, as otherwise folks are unable to come to their own conclusion, being uninformed of the prior pattern of behaviour. For example, they might unwittingly assume good faith.
****:--] 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*****My reply (I'll keep it short, we seem to agree on content, if not on process):
*****#Indeed they ''are'' confusing, glad you now understand my point.
*****#3, 4, & 5. ] is always a good assumption. As is the assumption that we are all well-versed editors here who can make up our own mind. I dont judge arguments on whether they are made by trolls, but on content, and you shouldnt encourage people to do so. ]]] ] 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

**'''Oppose''' any use of "Administrative" or "Political", as it would lead to endless arguing about which is which, and '''both''' would be incorrect in the case of many pages in ], a subcategory of ]
*'''comment'''
*# if big Will is claiming: ''According to the findings of his RfC, "Unfortunately he has poor English skills and has lost track of things since he was in a particularly ugly dispute. He sounds like a newbie, but that can't be assigned here since he has over 17,000 edits."'' then he tries again to hide a fact, the fact being that he was the one claiming Tobias has poor English skills.
*# If Will claims the last vote was only changed because I brought in other people, then let me tell you, that the people I brought in, where people I got to know during last year(s) when editing subdivision pages. I can not remember to ever have seen Minister of War, Luigi and Dave on any page before. (I am not saying their opinion has less value. Can be the opposite, because people invilved sometimes may swim in their own soup) Furthermore, when I brought in some background and asked some of the voters to reconsider their votes, then they did. It's not that I broguht in some sock puppet or so. Willy is trying to bring bad light on me, and I try to unbias what he tries to bias. The RfC on me he mentions again and again was just a bundle of claims he made, but as far as I remember nobody cared about the RfC beside one other person, that left the page very soon. Ah and I forgot: The sock that was created around the same time (]) At the time back then I tried to speak with Willy but he focused on deleting and reverting. And during the discussion here, Will never brought in facts when I asked him to do so. E.g. . And I can see that truth and facts are not liked by Tex and John neither , . And yes Tex, there is a diff between telling false things on the one hand and lieing on the other. If you read ] you may see it is difficult to prove that someone lies. What is less difficult, is to prove that someone does not tell the truth. And that he sticks to this. Or that he deletes facts.
*# Will claims ''A single person (Conradi) created most of these categories, without following the established process.''{{spaced ndash}}Which established process? What is wrong creating a cat without a "process"?{{spaced ndash}}] ] 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Current scheme has the merits of symmetry, inclusiveness, and avoiding "which is which" arguments. Many countries are "subdivided" on several different bases{{spaced ndash}}look at the hatful in the ], one small country (which is technically a mere "subdivision" (of a sort) itself). ] 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "political divison" is not accurate in usage for many countries; "administrative division" while blander has some meaning in nearly all countries; however, after thinking about this for some time, I concluded that the only NPOV way of handling this is by using the localized terms: Land (German), Megye (Hungarian), etc., and where there are multiple names at the same hierarchical level, as in Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, the United States, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia, and arguably in Canada, France, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom, they will all roll up to the country name category, so under ], you will have ], ], etc.. My earlier idea of first and second and third level administrative divisions as used by US gov't agencies seems to break down under greater scrutiny such as: while the District of Columbia may be a 1st order administrative region of the USA, it is NOT a state in the USA, and is French Guiana a 1st order administrative region of France - a department outre-mer, and what of New Caledonia whose status is somewhat different? Just food for thought and more debate, but I oppose the proposed renaming as too simplistic and not correct for many countries. ] 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]==== ====] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]; <br>] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Rename''' - ] 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Rename'''. "faculty" is preferable to "professors" - most ] use it. initialism should be spelled-out as well, as per convention ] 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC) '''Rename'''. "faculty" is preferable to "professors" - most ] use it. initialism should be spelled-out as well, as per convention ] 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' "Professor" should not be used om category names as it is not in itself a cause of notability and it is not used in the same way in all countries. ] 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' "Professor" should not be used om category names as it is not in itself a cause of notability and it is not used in the same way in all countries. ] 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 303: Line 440:
:::No, that's fine. I was just thinking in terms of another collective noun, but "academics by university" is certainly better. ] 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC) :::No, that's fine. I was just thinking in terms of another collective noun, but "academics by university" is certainly better. ] 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
* '''Expand abbreviations''' whether "faculty" or "academic staff" used. ] 09:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC) * '''Expand abbreviations''' whether "faculty" or "academic staff" used. ] 09:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename'''. Prefers academic staff. &mdash; ]] 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename'''. Prefers academic staff.{{spaced ndash}}]] 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' to academics or academic staff. ] 09:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====remaining Professors category pages==== ====remaining Professors category pages====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Rename all''' - ] 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

'''Rename all.''' In November ] was deleted (see the discussion here - it has since been resurrected but as a redirect category page) the nomination here is to complete the renaming and merging of professor category pages to sub-categories of ]. a professor is a job title and having one is not encyclopedic whereas being a prominent academic (within one's field) is. ] 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) here is the list for rename/merge: '''Rename all.''' In November ] was deleted (see the discussion here - it has since been resurrected but as a redirect category page) the nomination here is to complete the renaming and merging of professor category pages to sub-categories of ]. a professor is a job title and having one is not encyclopedic whereas being a prominent academic (within one's field) is. ] 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) here is the list for rename/merge:


Line 320: Line 465:
*] to ] *] to ]
*] to ] *] to ]
*] (the one person populating this is a literature prof) to <strike>]<strike> ] *] (the one person populating this is a literature prof) to <strike>]</strike> ]
*] to ] *] to ]
*] to ] *] to ]
Line 350: Line 495:
::they won t need to since the entire content of both pages is included in this nomination] 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) ::they won t need to since the entire content of both pages is included in this nomination] 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
:::I don't follow. Are you saying those cats will be simply deleted? Surely the same arguments against the word "Professor" apply to them too. --] 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC) :::I don't follow. Are you saying those cats will be simply deleted? Surely the same arguments against the word "Professor" apply to them too. --] 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::::::the two cat pages do not hold any article pages because, due to how they are named, they list (only sub-)category pages of professors by subject and profs by country. ] page however listed article pages, the bios of profs, whose links have not been sorted (yet) by subject and or nationality. i don t think i can explain it clearly really (and i m an english linguist, sadly) but by visting the three cat pages you ll see how there s no problem involved. ] 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename all but move critical theory professors to critical theorists''' (the nominator suggests moving the sole critical theorist to literary crtic, which I disagree with). Critical theory is an interdisciplinary subject, so everyone who ought to be in this category will also be in another academic category (compare ]). This is nonetheless a very big field which diserves a category on wikipedia. --''best, kevin'' <b>]<b>]]<b>]</b> 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename all but move critical theory professors to critical theorists''' (the nominator suggests moving the sole critical theorist to literary crtic, which I disagree with). Critical theory is an interdisciplinary subject, so everyone who ought to be in this category will also be in another academic category (compare ]). This is nonetheless a very big field which diserves a category on wikipedia. --''best, kevin'' <b>]<b>]]<b>]</b> 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
::will oblige ] 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC) ::will oblige ] 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Line 360: Line 506:
**'''Comment''' I'm an American, and I don't hear it that way. ''An'' academic is only a person. It is a little unfortunate that there's this other meaning in the plural, but I think that's liveable-with. An "academician" on the other hand is a member of a formal academy, such as the National Academy of Science. BTW the problem with "professor" is not really ambiguity; it's the fact that it's a job ''title'' as opposed to a job ''description''. --] 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) **'''Comment''' I'm an American, and I don't hear it that way. ''An'' academic is only a person. It is a little unfortunate that there's this other meaning in the plural, but I think that's liveable-with. An "academician" on the other hand is a member of a formal academy, such as the National Academy of Science. BTW the problem with "professor" is not really ambiguity; it's the fact that it's a job ''title'' as opposed to a job ''description''. --] 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' I'm also a native Am-English speaker, raised in an academic family, and my first interpretation of "legal academics" would be academic people who study law. I do see the ambiguity, however. Although I prefer the ambiguity over the term "academician". --''best, kevin'' <b>]<b>]]<b>]</b> 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC) **'''Comment''' I'm also a native Am-English speaker, raised in an academic family, and my first interpretation of "legal academics" would be academic people who study law. I do see the ambiguity, however. Although I prefer the ambiguity over the term "academician". --''best, kevin'' <b>]<b>]]<b>]</b> 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename all''' per nom. ] 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename all''' per nom. ] 09:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====]==== ====]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Keep''' - ] 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently empty with little scope of growth] 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Currently empty with little scope of growth] 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. Not empty. ] 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. Not empty. ] 15:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Nothing wrong with this. ] 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Nothing wrong with this. ] 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Keep''' - ] 17:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Small with little scope for growth] 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Small with little scope for growth] 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. ] 15:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. ] 15:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Moving articles from a country specific category to a "by country" category is a very bad idea. ] 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Moving articles from a country specific category to a "by country" category is a very bad idea. ] 22:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Rename''' to ] - ] 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Small with little scope for growth] 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Small with little scope for growth] 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. ] 15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep'''. ] 15:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Moving articles from a country specific category to a "by country" category is a very bad idea. ] 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Moving articles from a country specific category to a "by country" category is a very bad idea. ] 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
**and '''rename''' ] as below ] 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''move''' to "]" for countries nouns are prefered to adjectives. ] ] 21:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and rename ]. ] 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' ] as per my comments re: the renaming proposal for ] some way above. ] 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====]==== ====]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Delete''' - ] 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's unusual to propose deletion just after the ] ended, however, there's one important thing that wasn't considered in the previous debate: the category consisted of a set of about a dozen related articles which I found while browsing around, but later ''all'' were redirected to ], which is the only article left on the category. With that, the category became pointless. '''Delete'''. ] 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC) I know it's unusual to propose deletion just after the ] ended, however, there's one important thing that wasn't considered in the previous debate: the category consisted of a set of about a dozen related articles which I found while browsing around, but later ''all'' were redirected to ], which is the only article left on the category. With that, the category became pointless. '''Delete'''. ] 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*Delete, as per earlier nom. No point in keeping categories for single articles, even if they were previously myriad stubs. ] 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *Delete, as per earlier nom. No point in keeping categories for single articles, even if they were previously myriad stubs. ] 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''no consensous''' - ] 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after objection. --] 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Moved from speedy after objection. --] 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. Both spellings are commonly used. The ''SCMP'', the territory's English-language newspaper with the largest circulation, spells ''Hongkongers'' in one word. &mdash; ]] 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Oppose'''. Both spellings are commonly used. The ''SCMP'', the territory's English-language newspaper with the largest circulation, spells ''Hongkongers'' in one word.{{spaced ndash}}]] 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Rename''' - ] 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Visitor attractions" is a much more common category name. There is no ] for this to slot into. ] 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC) "Visitor attractions" is a much more common category name. There is no ] for this to slot into. ] 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' as above. ] 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' as above. ] 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. ] 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' per nom. ] 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. --] 01:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Rename''' - ] 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The band's name is ], so a "The" needs to be added to the category (per e.g. ]). ] 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC) The band's name is ], so a "The" needs to be added to the category (per e.g. ]). ] 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. ] 07:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' per nom. ] 07:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. &mdash;]]] <small>(])</small> 09:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' per nom. &mdash;]]] <small>(])</small> 09:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' per nom. ] 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Rename''' per nom. ] 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>


====] to ]==== ====] to ]====

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''
The result of the debate was '''Merge''' - ] 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates. "N.W.A" is a mistake as it's an acronym so should be "N.W.A." ] 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Duplicates. "N.W.A" is a mistake as it's an acronym so should be "N.W.A." ] 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''<s>Rename</s>Merge''' per nom. &mdash;]]] <small>(])</small> 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''<s>Rename</s>Merge''' per nom. &mdash;]]] <small>(])</small> 09:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' per nom <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 14:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC) *'''Merge''' per nom <i>] <sup>]</sup></i> 14:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red;">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.''</div>

Latest revision as of 11:27, 9 February 2023

< April 14 April 16 >

April 15

Category:United States federal organic, enabling, and admission legislation to Category:United States federal territory and statehood legislation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename - TexasAndroid 17:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The old name was ugly & awkward. The new name's a big improvement, but still not perfect. —Markles 20:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Subdivisions to appropriate divisions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to rename. Syrthiss 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

note from closing admin - I hate to see so much wasted effort in bringing the entire list here (and tagging all the categories?), but really there is no clear indication either way. If I take just the current discussion, it is 3 sup to 4 opp. If I take the current comments and add them to the previous (discounting those who commented on both, their votes didn't change) I still get ~11 sup to 6 opp. I suggest following up at Category talk:Subdivisions by country or another forum of your choosing because I DO think this is an important classification problem and should be resolved. Feel free to contact me if you want my advice. --Syrthiss 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, and probably in all of English language geography, a "subdivision" is a division of a piece of land or plat. The correct terminology is Administrative division or Political division.

Relisting of entire kit and kaboodle on the advice of the closer at Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 4 and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. --William Allen Simpson 18:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

These are the current subcategories to be included in Category:Administrative divisions by country:

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

R

S

T

U

Z

By definition, some countries cannot be classed directly in administrative divisions, where the political divisions are sovereign states. These are the proposed subcategories of existing Category:Political divisions by country:
However, since there are so few, many have expressed a preference for merging the categories. As an alternative, these could be included in Category:Administrative divisions by country with careful naming of their respective subcategories. Please indicate your preference respecting these alternatives:
Old Debate

The old debate here is Closed, and left here for historical context, and to mitigate somewhat the need for people to repeat arguments that have already been made. Please resume a new, fresh debate below the closed off section. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Support as nominator --William Allen Simpson 16:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Prefer Administrative divisions. In much more common use than "political divisions" (per Google search), by more authoritative sources (Bartleby, the CIA and Guiness Book), and used more often in the context in which we are using it here, geographical sub-regions of a sovereign state. "Subdivision" is the incorrect term entirely.--Esprit15d 17:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Conditional support. Only if done consistently. This is only possible if the more neutral term "Administrative Division" is used. As noted below, creating Political Divisions of France doesn't make sense as it is a political unit. The term Administrative Divisions may seem counterintuitive for more federalised countries as Russia, the US and Germany, but it is much more neutral and much easier applied consistently. The Minister of War 21:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Prefer "Administrative divisions" as per User:The Minister of War, and note that the US Geonames folks use this as well (for whatever that's worth). Carlossuarez46 20:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Prefer "Administrative divisions". "Political divisions by country" sounds like it is about political strife. Carina22 00:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Prefer support use of "Administrative divisions" to rename cat pages listed in the nominationMayumashu 12:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Subdivision is an ambiguous and confusing term. Prefer "Administrative divisions". In addition, in Canada, subdivision could also refer to different types of municipalities. Luigizanasi 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Prefer "Administrative divisions" as per Carina22 Valentinian 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support "administrative divisions", but only if the renaming of all affected categories and articles is going to be done properly and expeditiously.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Prefer "Administrative divisions" to "subdivisions" or "political divisions". Kestenbaum 00:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. strong oppose please postpone. should be taken with more care. It not only involves 103 subcategories but also their articles and their subcategories. Proposal should be directed to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Subnational_entities/Naming#Umbrella_terms first. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for now, need to define terms first. I believe that some changes are in order, especially in regards to how we are defining the terms we are using. It is important that we come to a consensus on the usage of terms such as "subdivisions", "administrative divisions".. etc. Though it may seem like nitpicking, these terms, as well as how they relate to nations or states is important. I strongly suggest discussing these issues at WikiProject Subnational entities/Naming#Umbrella terms and Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (subnational entities) before any final decesion is made here. -Loren 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Provisional oppose as per Loren et al. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment – my preference is technical accuracy over convenience, these have been identified as properly named, due to the independence of the next level divisions. --William Allen Simpson 06:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The terminology is certainly important. But the discussion is already here, why put it there? I have posted messages on those pages to invite people to discuss it here instead. The Minister of War 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Sounds good. My main concern at the moment is the relation of subdivisions/administrative divisions to the state/country they're being listed as a part of. While this isn't a problem with most regions it does pose a significant challenge in regions where more then one state with the same name exists (i.e. North and South Korea, the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), the Republic of Congo and the Dem. Republic of Congo... etc). Do we crosslist subcategories from each of the states under a single geographic region? Or do we list administrative regions solely under categories for each state (affairs of state being restricted to the state they relate to, my personal POV)? I'm sure there are other issues in terms of wording that other people could bring up for discussion. -Loren 08:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
      • comment terminology discussion should not go to an obscure CfD page. terminology also applies to to articles. The best thing IMO is to improve the umbrella term articles (Administrative division, Political division, Country subdivision, Subnational entity) or to discuss the matter on the related project page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How about Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo. This should deal with the problem of what is an admin vs a a political division, so we do not need to make a judgment. Referring to a Canadian province and a US or Australian state as an Administrative division somehow seems wrong, while counties, municipalities, regions, etc, are clearly "administrative" and not political. "Subdivision" just sounds wrong". Luigizanasi 05:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
    • comment if it just sounds wrong, then wait a while and you get used to it ;-). Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo is quite long and may become longer if one implements a subcat with historic divisions only. And then replace Foo by Democratic Republic of the Congo. Furthermore this would not cover areas just set up for statistical purpose. (The official Regions of Brazil). I made a stub about Country subdivisions. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
      • comment I don't believe that Misplaced Pages should be in the business of inventing new meanings for words. A "subdivision" means that something that was divided is divided again. In my Canadian geographical context, subdivision can mean to things: either a suburban neighbourhood where a piece of farmland was subdivided into individual plots, or in the context of Statistics Canada where a Census division is a, well, division of a province into counties or similar areas, and a Census subdivision is some form of municipality, Indian Reserve or unorganized territory. Using "subdivision" for Canadian provinces completely violates the principle of least astonishment. When I first saw provinces or counties referred to as subdivisions, I must say I was astonished at a novel use of the word. Dictionaries did confirm that my astonishment was justified. Political or administrative divisions (your pick or both, I'm not particularly hung up on either), on the other hand, are clear terms for what is meant here. Let us not forget that Misplaced Pages is not for the convenience of editors, but for the public using it, and misusing the term subdivision will only confuse potential readers. Luigizanasi 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
        • comment agree, the "sub" is kind of strange. But this would better go to linguists first, since language not allways is 100% logical. I will add a notion about the non-logic into Country subdivision. Please help to improve the article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment It's not about logic, it's about usage and the meaning of words in the English language, and . "Subdivision" on its own in this context simply does not mean what you intend it to mean. "Administrative division" and "political division" do, as do "political subdivision" or "administrative subdivision" for that matter. But "subdivision of Foo" on its own does not, it is just confusing to an English-speaking user and a misuse of the word. Check with any dictionary. Luigizanasi 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is NOT true. It is not a complete relisting, especially William hided some annotated facts again. Furthermore he listed old votings and comments out of context, because originally there where three votings. Furthermore before this fast relisting we could discuss the matter as suggested "Minister of war" and Tobias Conradi (and...?) Minister of war started discussion at Category talk:Subdivisions by country ---- Tobias Conradi (Talk) 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Prefer administrative divisions to political divisions. Nevertheless it will exclude constituencies and ceremonial counties, for instance, which are also subdivisions. – Instantnood 19:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment don't split the subdivision cats into "Administrative divisions" and "Political divisions".

...is a problematic term for a cat name that deals with territories in one country:

new debate
Comment - To address the concerns over the reuse of the old debate/votes, I am closing off the above sections. These will be considered as historical reference only. Please begin the debate anew below. Notices will be sent out to all who participated in the original debate. Pro, Con, and Neutral. Please debate below the proposal as it is now on the table. The arguments above over whether the relisting is partial or full are now moot. This is a new debate, about the current proposal. - TexasAndroid 20:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – as nominator – asking that folks not alter the listing, but instead give clean, clear, and cogent descriptions here, instead. There are several remaining technical questions (the same as the previous listing on April 4) to be addressed by experts in the particular regions. --William Allen Simpson 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The current Category:Subdivisions of Japan is better than Category:Administrative divisions of Japan as not all of the divisions listed there are administrative. Some are geographical, some are political, and some are administrative. Some of the geographical overlap multiple administrative and political divisions. Changing the current name would only confuse things unless a better name can be thought up. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 23:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • These are terms of art. Did you read the administrative division definition? (Please ignore the recent Conradi changes to influence the debate, they are often inaccurate.)
      1. It is my understanding that Japan is a sovereign state.
      2. There are no separate nationalities within Japan, so there are no political divisions. (Conradi keeps changing the definition from nation to country, so ignore that page for now, you'll need a textbook instead.)
      3. According to the CIA World Factbook, the top level administrative division, 47 prefectures, are not sovereign states. So, these are not "political division" of Japan.
      4. Looking carefully at the pages in the category, each of these articles appear to be administrative divisions. Even regions overlapping cities and towns are actually administrative.
      5. Without a formal definition for geographic division or geographical division, it does not appear either of these apply to Japan.
      • Please remember to use terms of art, not arbitrary wikipedian phraseology.
        --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • What do you mean by "These are terms of art"? That sentence makes absolutely no sense. We're talking about subnational divisions within countries, not painting or pottery.
        1. Yes, Japan is a sovereign state, but what does that have to do with this discussion?
        2. The Ainu consider themselves as separate from the whole of Japan, though the number of Ainu who aren't integrated into the rest of Japan is rapidly dwindling.
        3. As for the prefectures not being considered political divisions, did you read the definition? Prefectures clearly qualify as political divisions, as they are at the same level as states in the United States. Based on the definition on that page, an "administrative division" is simply a smaller "political division".
        4. Category:Regions of Japan covers many divisions in Japan that are geographic, not political or administrative. These geographic regions often include pieces of multiple political and/or administrative divisions, similar to the Rocky Mountains, the Great Plains, or Sub-Saharan Africa. These areas are absolutely not adminsitrative divisions, and in many cases aren't even subnational divisions as they encompass multiple nations.
        5. Perhaps we should all put our heads together and come up with a geographical division article. It seems like we need one based on the discussion here.
        • Again, I have no idea what you mean when you say to "use terms of art." What does that even mean in this context? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 02:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Apparently, there is an English language problem here. Please read Term of art. These are legal and political science terms.
            1. It is the basis of administrative division.
            2. I see no articles or subcategories of Category:Subdivisions of Japan regarding Ainu. Do the Ainu people have their own sovereign state?
            3. Pardon my ignorance. Since Prefectures of Japan currently declares that the "Local Autonomy Law of 1947" governs administrative divisions ("established most of Japan's contemporary local government structures"), perhaps the articles are incorrect and must be re-written. Can each prefecture define its own laws? Independently change the names of cities, counties, and districts? Reorganize its internal borders without consulting the government of Japan? Enjoy sovereign immunity from suit by the residents of other prefectures? (Without these qualities, among many others, prefectures are not "the same level" as states in the United States.)
            4. It is entirely possible that Category:Regions of Japan is wrongly categorized, and belongs in Category:Geography of Japan.
            5. WP:NOR, it is not up to anybody here to "put our heads together". Please cite your academic sources for these previously unknown terms of art.
          • Please remember to use terms of art, not arbitrary wikipedian phraseology.
            --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I can see why everyone here enjoys "talking" with you so much. You make me feel warm and fuzzy all over...xp. There's no English language problem here as I've spoken English all of my life and have no problem using common terms. "Term of art" is hardly in common usage, and I'd never seen it used until I read it here. Since you didn't include a wikilink the first time you used it, I had no idea it was even described here. And this "arbitrary wikipedian phraseology" qualifies as "terms of art" based on the opening sentence of that article, which states that "terms of art" are "the specialised vocabulary of a profession or of some other activity to which a group of people dedicate significant parts of their lives." (emphasis added)
            • Prefectures of Japan can do all of those things you describe (though their names for "cities, counties, and districts" aren't quite the same. There are some prefectural laws established in Japan, though they are very few given that the police are generally administrated at the national level. Keep in mind that Japan is slightly larger than the state of California, so there's not such a huge area to govern. Therefore, most of the laws and ordinances are done at the national and city/town/village level. The prefectures each have their own school systems (like a state-wide school district, if you will), though city and private schools also exist.
            • About which specific "terms of art" are you inquiring? --日本穣 Nihonjoe 20:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Looking more carfully would have revealed to Willy that the region article states the regions are not official. How can they be administrative then?
        • Willy once again makes a claim without evidence, I cannot see where I changed the definition of nation, furthermore Willy wrote this term in brackets next to the term nationality - so I am not sure to which term he wanted to refer. Maybe Willy can provide more background .Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC), changed words in italics Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    1. don't split into Administrative divisions and Political divisions
    2. Some country subdivisions are neither administrative nor political, see Instantnood and Nihonjoe.
    3. the term "division (subnational entity)" is used specific country subdivisions in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and historicly Pakistan. The rename would result in the Administrative divisions of India being a subcategory of Administrative divisions of India
    4. Administrative division can also apply to non-territorial divisioning (of government occupation areas, i.e. Defense, Interior)
    5. see talk:Country subdivision to find that Willy's claim that "subdivision" in geography refers allways to Housing subdivisions is not true. It seems this is an US / real estate centric point of view.
    6. The move is really is mass move. If renames are necessary, they should be taken with more care. It effects not only more than 100 categories, more than 100 articles pages, templates and in the end Wikiprojects that use the name. Minister of war started a discussion at: Category_talk:Subdivisions by country, furthermore there is a corresponding Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Country subdivisions which Willy knows. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – again, as I have elsewhere, I object to the abusive namecalling, and derogatory diminuative form of my name. Since Conradi has persisted, I will again initiate separate proceedings against him. Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe. It appears to be nearly identical to his last comment in the closed portion of the debate.
    --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If you would have choosen a shorter user name I would maybe write it in full. You don't write my full name neither. You object to abusive name calling? What do you refer to? Have fun with your separate "proceedings". What will they be? Sending missiles to Berlin? You seem to be a little bit unrelaxed. What do you mean by diatribe as mentioned in the edit summary? I remember you classified my english at least two times as of minor quality. It seems you really speak a different english to mine. And your distance to facts seems to be bigger. Because you claim and claim and claim, but if asked for backgound obstain, obstain, obstain.
    • Let's be productive on content. Let's dicuss at project page and the talk page that Minister of War started. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment. from what s come up thus far, the phrase "subnational divisions" works best, allowing for inclusion of non-administrative yet recognized areas that may exist within a sovereign country Mayumashu 03:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, although I would prefer Category:Political and administrative divisions of Foo to avoid wrangling over what is a political vs administrative. Subnational divisions of Foo would also be OK per Mayumashu. Subdivisions has got to go, unless we preface it with what kind of subdivision (i.e. political or administrative). Luigizanasi 06:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would be amenable to using the term "administrative division" for everything (the CIA World Factbook does), however:
      1. that is sometimes considered too US Centric (probably because of the CIA) and therefore politically incorrect.
      2. Several areas of the world seem to pursue (as in fighting wars over) their states' political autonomy (see the five listed above).
      3. The term "subnational" is already in use for another purpose, such as disputed areas of Armenia and Kurdistan.
      4. The term "subnational" is rarely used in the US, as we have independent nations that coexist with states by treaty (indigenous populations).
      5. My parents still talk about a skirmish over national identity (called WWII) overseas, and the horrors of nationalism. Therefore, the term nationality is frequently replaced by ethnicity.
      --William Allen Simpson 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Prefer a single term for all categories. Otherwise we risk discussing whether the Netherlands have political or Administrative divisions. Subnational divisions as noted above is a way to achieve uniformity. Also, two additional points: 1) Why are we not having this discussion on Category talk:Subdivisions by country as I proposed last time? If we're just going to vote over this there is probably no consensus. If we discuss it, we might reach one. Also, the clutter we're creating on this page is astounding. 2) I suggest you both, Tobias and William, have a cup of tea, this is really unbecoming. The Minister of War 07:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I would be amenable to using the term "administrative division" for everything (the CIA World Factbook does), however:
      1. There is simply no question whether the Netherlands are sovereign, or consist of federally independent sovereign states. This is a straw man.
      2. We had a strong consensus last time, until Conradi brought 3 more folks here at the last moment.
      3. A single person (Conradi) created most of these categories, without following the established process.
      4. According to the findings of his RfC, "Unfortunately he has poor English skills and has lost track of things since he was in a particularly ugly dispute. He sounds like a newbie, but that can't be assigned here since he has over 17,000 edits."
      5. If you are accusing me of something, please be specific. I spent a lot of time gathering the data, and now more time explaining basic definitions here. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, it is an encyclopedia.
      --William Allen Simpson 12:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • My short answer: If we were to use one single term, I certainly will support. I'd prefer the term "subnational" (despite the fact that nation != country, the term subnational is the most often used, and unambiguous in itself). Administrative divisions also sounds good.
      • My long answer:
        1. You're missing my point. The Netherlands is not federal, but does have Political Divisions (with a somewhat federal history I might add). Distinguishing between "Political" and "Administrative" will only lead to long discussion on what the difference it is. The fact that you have clearly delineated ideas of how those lines run, does not mean they are apparent from the terms themselves. They would require clarification, which would lead to all kinds of horrible discussions; on Netherlands but also elsewhere.
        2. I disagreed with your use of different terms then, as I do now. Furthermore, Tobias is free to bring in interested people, as are you, as am I.
        3. Could be. But I seemed to remember him being part of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Subnational entities, so I assumed good faith in that it had been discussed there.
        4. & 5. I dislike placing any derogatory remarks on any user, even if (especially if) he admits to his faults. Especially your encouragements for people to "Please ignore his ill-informed diatribe" are particularly unbecoming. I can assess arguments quite well on my own. The Minister of War 12:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Short reply: since one (1) prominent source (the "CIA World Factbook") uses "Administrative divisions" for US States, as well as China and Venezuela, I will support using only "Administrative divisions", and will list that alternative in the proposal.
        • Long reply:
          1. All divisions of government are political. Terms of art are often confusing to folks not familiar with them. Try "strange quark".
          2. No, folks have been suspended by ArbComm for vote trolling.
          3. That may not have been a good assumption. The only source for "subnational entity" is Misplaced Pages itself. Heavy sigh. Referencing Misplaced Pages will actually lose you points on your papers for State and Local Government here at the "Harvard of the Midwest" (hint: I've discussed it with the professor across the dinner table, and she's notable enough for her own Misplaced Pages entry). I'm just trying to improve the state of affairs....
          4. & 5. It is best to bring the issues to light, as otherwise folks are unable to come to their own conclusion, being uninformed of the prior pattern of behaviour. For example, they might unwittingly assume good faith.
          --William Allen Simpson 14:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
          • My reply (I'll keep it short, we seem to agree on content, if not on process):
            1. Indeed they are confusing, glad you now understand my point.
            2. 3, 4, & 5. Good faith is always a good assumption. As is the assumption that we are all well-versed editors here who can make up our own mind. I dont judge arguments on whether they are made by trolls, but on content, and you shouldnt encourage people to do so. The Minister of War 15:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment
    1. if big Will is claiming: According to the findings of his RfC, "Unfortunately he has poor English skills and has lost track of things since he was in a particularly ugly dispute. He sounds like a newbie, but that can't be assigned here since he has over 17,000 edits." then he tries again to hide a fact, the fact being that he was the one claiming Tobias has poor English skills.
    2. If Will claims the last vote was only changed because I brought in other people, then let me tell you, that the people I brought in, where people I got to know during last year(s) when editing subdivision pages. I can not remember to ever have seen Minister of War, Luigi and Dave on any page before. (I am not saying their opinion has less value. Can be the opposite, because people invilved sometimes may swim in their own soup) Furthermore, when I brought in some background and asked some of the voters to reconsider their votes, then they did. It's not that I broguht in some sock puppet or so. Willy is trying to bring bad light on me, and I try to unbias what he tries to bias. The RfC on me he mentions again and again was just a bundle of claims he made, but as far as I remember nobody cared about the RfC beside one other person, that left the page very soon. Ah and I forgot: The sock that was created around the same time (User:OnceBitten) At the time back then I tried to speak with Willy but he focused on deleting and reverting. And during the discussion here, Will never brought in facts when I asked him to do so. E.g. . And I can see that truth and facts are not liked by Tex and John neither , . And yes Tex, there is a diff between telling false things on the one hand and lieing on the other. If you read lie you may see it is difficult to prove that someone lies. What is less difficult, is to prove that someone does not tell the truth. And that he sticks to this. Or that he deletes facts.
    3. Will claims A single person (Conradi) created most of these categories, without following the established process. – Which established process? What is wrong creating a cat without a "process"? – Tobias Conradi (Talk) 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current scheme has the merits of symmetry, inclusiveness, and avoiding "which is which" arguments. Many countries are "subdivided" on several different bases – look at the hatful in the Subdivisions of Scotland, one small country (which is technically a mere "subdivision" (of a sort) itself). Alai 15:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "political divison" is not accurate in usage for many countries; "administrative division" while blander has some meaning in nearly all countries; however, after thinking about this for some time, I concluded that the only NPOV way of handling this is by using the localized terms: Land (German), Megye (Hungarian), etc., and where there are multiple names at the same hierarchical level, as in Russia, the Holy Roman Empire, the United States, Mexico, Brazil, and Australia, and arguably in Canada, France, Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom, they will all roll up to the country name category, so under Category:Russian Federation, you will have Category:Autonomous Okrugs in the Russian Federation, Category:Republics in the Russian Federation, etc.. My earlier idea of first and second and third level administrative divisions as used by US gov't agencies seems to break down under greater scrutiny such as: while the District of Columbia may be a 1st order administrative region of the USA, it is NOT a state in the USA, and is French Guiana a 1st order administrative region of France - a department outre-mer, and what of New Caledonia whose status is somewhat different? Just food for thought and more debate, but I oppose the proposed renaming as too simplistic and not correct for many countries. Carlossuarez46 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Carnegie Mellon professors to Category:Carnegie Mellon University faculty;
Category:MIT professors to Category:Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty;
Category:Harvard University professors to Category:Harvard University faculty;
Category:Columbia University professors to Category:Columbia University faculty;
Category:New York University professors to Category:New York University faculty

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename - TexasAndroid 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename. "faculty" is preferable to "professors" - most category:Faculties by university in the United States use it. initialism should be spelled-out as well, as per convention Mayumashu 16:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename "Professor" should not be used om category names as it is not in itself a cause of notability and it is not used in the same way in all countries. Bhoeble 22:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename, but please consider using "academic staff" instead of "faculty" (Category:Harvard University academic staff etc), despite this being British rather than American English. "Faculty" generally has the meaning of a subdivision within a university. Only American English uses it as a collective noun for the teachers/researchers of a university. That would make it fine to use for referring to U.S. institutions, if it weren't for the fact that American universities also use "Faculty" with the traditional meaning (e.g. Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences). It gets particularly confusing when the supercategory uses the plural "faculties". Tupsharru 23:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
a valid concern, i d also say - will nominate a name change to Category:Academics by university - "academic staff" doesn t has any advantage over "academics", does it?
No, that's fine. I was just thinking in terms of another collective noun, but "academics by university" is certainly better. Tupsharru 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

remaining Professors category pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all - TexasAndroid 17:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rename all. In November Category:Professors was deleted (see the discussion here - it has since been resurrected but as a redirect category page) the nomination here is to complete the renaming and merging of professor category pages to sub-categories of Category:Academics. a professor is a job title and having one is not encyclopedic whereas being a prominent academic (within one's field) is. Mayumashu 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC) here is the list for rename/merge:

  • Rename all per nominator (I assume "Professors by subject" and "Professors by nationality" will go to "Academics by subject" and "Academics by nationality"; might want to amend the nomination for completeness). --Trovatore 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
they won t need to since the entire content of both pages is included in this nominationMayumashu 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow. Are you saying those cats will be simply deleted? Surely the same arguments against the word "Professor" apply to them too. --Trovatore 17:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
the two cat pages do not hold any article pages because, due to how they are named, they list (only sub-)category pages of professors by subject and profs by country. Category:Professors page however listed article pages, the bios of profs, whose links have not been sorted (yet) by subject and or nationality. i don t think i can explain it clearly really (and i m an english linguist, sadly) but by visting the three cat pages you ll see how there s no problem involved. Mayumashu 02:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all but move critical theory professors to critical theorists (the nominator suggests moving the sole critical theorist to literary crtic, which I disagree with). Critical theory is an interdisciplinary subject, so everyone who ought to be in this category will also be in another academic category (compare Category:Game theorists). This is nonetheless a very big field which diserves a category on wikipedia. --best, kevin 16:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
will oblige Mayumashu 16:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. Bhoeble 22:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nomination. Tupsharru 23:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nomination. I note in passing that the Category:Chemists is rather confusing with its sub-categories. I'll raise a discussion on the Chemistry WikiProject. --Bduke 00:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. David Kernow 09:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as suggested. --Ed (Edgar181) 11:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Academics" primarily refers to subjects in American English, not people, such that the abstract phrase "legal academics," for example, would most likely be read as the study of the law rather than those who study it. I'd support renaming to "academicians" instead because that word only refers to people, while "academic" is comparatively inobvious and ambiguous (as much if not more so than "professor" is in British English). Postdlf 15:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm an American, and I don't hear it that way. An academic is only a person. It is a little unfortunate that there's this other meaning in the plural, but I think that's liveable-with. An "academician" on the other hand is a member of a formal academy, such as the National Academy of Science. BTW the problem with "professor" is not really ambiguity; it's the fact that it's a job title as opposed to a job description. --Trovatore 18:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm also a native Am-English speaker, raised in an academic family, and my first interpretation of "legal academics" would be academic people who study law. I do see the ambiguity, however. Although I prefer the ambiguity over the term "academician". --best, kevin 18:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. Scranchuse 01:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename all per nom. mattbr 09:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Disaster preparation in Puerto Rico

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Currently empty with little scope of growthDrdan 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Disaster preparation in Germany to Category:Disaster preparation by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - TexasAndroid 17:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Small with little scope for growthDrdan 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian disaster preparation to Category:Disaster preparation by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Disaster preparation in Canada - TexasAndroid 17:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Small with little scope for growthDrdan 15:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Space flight control room positions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete - TexasAndroid 17:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's unusual to propose deletion just after the previous CfD ended, however, there's one important thing that wasn't considered in the previous debate: the category consisted of a set of about a dozen related articles which I found while browsing around, but later all were redirected to Flight controller, which is the only article left on the category. With that, the category became pointless. Delete. cesarb 13:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, as per earlier nom. No point in keeping categories for single articles, even if they were previously myriad stubs. Alai 14:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional Hongkongers to Category:Fictional Hong Kongers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous - TexasAndroid 17:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved from speedy after objection. --Syrthiss 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Both spellings are commonly used. The SCMP, the territory's English-language newspaper with the largest circulation, spells Hongkongers in one word. – Instantnood 12:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Famous locations in Fukui Prefecture to Category:Visitor attractions in Fukui Prefecture

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename - TexasAndroid 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"Visitor attractions" is a much more common category name. There is no category:Famous locations for this to slot into. Honbicot 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Stone Roses albums to Category:The Stone Roses albums

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename - TexasAndroid 17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The band's name is The Stone Roses, so a "The" needs to be added to the category (per e.g. Category:The Beatles albums). kingboyk 07:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:N.W.A to Category:N.W.A.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge - TexasAndroid 17:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Duplicates. "N.W.A" is a mistake as it's an acronym so should be "N.W.A." kingboyk 05:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.