Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Golbez (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 12 April 2006 (→Vote on deletions of template and related terms: and undo the bold put in mine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Terminology

Administrative division

from articel Administration.

In some contexts, including normal usage in the United States, the term administration also refers to the executive branch under a specific president (or sometimes governor, mayor, or other local executive), for example: the "Bush administration". (Most other English-speaking countries use the analogous term government, as in the "Blair government".) It can also mean an executive branch agency headed by an administrator: these agencies tend to have a regulatory function as well as an administrative function. On occasion, Americans will use the term to refer to the time a given person was president, e.g. "they've been married since the Carter administration."

if administration means government then a division of this administration does not refer to a territorial unit. But to one part of the government. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Country subdivision

What about the name "Country subdivisions"? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 03:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• e.g.: ISO 3166-2 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 2: Country subdivision code

What about learning well-known, widely understood, English language terminology in multiple fields, including Demographics, Geography, and Political Science?

Amazingly enough, we don't make terms out of compound words, so it really doesn't matter that "administration" standing alone is sometimes synonymous with "government" in some other context.... English is a context sensitive language, as some of us have learned in Group theory applied to natural language recognition.

Please stop trying to "standardize" phrases based on inaccurate translation and understanding. Again, the folks that came before you knew what they were talking about, and I'm personally aggrieved that you changed so many "administrative divisions" to "subdivisions" (a completely useless non-equivalency). In English, "subdivisions" are not small "divisions".

Now, I'm having to make hundreds of edits just to list them for cleaning up, and probably hundreds more to actually clean up afterward, taking away from my limited time to do something more interesting.

--William Allen Simpson 03:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• why did you not standardize before? So as to prevent my possible mistakes?
• How about reducing your arrogance towards non english natives and broadening your concept of widely understood? If the folks that came before me "knew" what they talked about, well then why did you move subnational entity to administrative division? (I assume that with your non very much informative claim that people "knew what they talked about" you mean they applied the most accurate term. Pls correct me if you meant it otherwise, because "to know" what one talks about does not mean one applies the most accurate terms.)
• did you ever consider that changing from administrative division to subdivision allowed for inclusion of non-administrative entities such as regions of Brazil? Maybe this broadening can be a benefit in country overview articles in categories? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote on deletions of template and related terms

Williams repeatedly deletes the template {{Subnational entity}} from this article that until he moved it on 2006-04-04 to "Administrative division" was named "Subnational entity". He also deletes mentionings of related terms in the intro of this article, country subdivision, subnational entity. Additional he re-states that In contexts of statistical ranking and comparability, the term statoid is sometimes used. Which in that sense is only a term coined by one person, Gwillim Law.

Shall the template and the terms be included in this article or not? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• include both - is useful to the reader. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - As long as we have an article on statoid, it is clearly notable enough to include in this article. So if you wish that line to be removed, first get statoid deleted.
  • yes 100% agree that it should be included. But look the way William's reversion phrases vs. the version of Tobias. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 16:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Do not include the template. It appears wholly redundant to the article. --Golbez 13:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Then the article should be maybe rewritten, expanded. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 14:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Then rewrite and expand the article. I'd much rather have a full article, than a bad article with a full template. As for William's edits, I'm not going to vote on a content matter at this time. I have never looked at this article before you sent me the link, so I am not equipped to choose one version over another. My vote is purely on the layout/aesthetics of including the template. Maybe later when I've spent more time with an unfamiliar article, I can make a statement about the content. --Golbez 16:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Include. I fail to understand the reasoning behind opposing votes. The template may need a lot more work, true, but it certainly does serve a useful purpose, and its scope is nothing short of admirable.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)