Talk:Córdoba Province, Argentina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Argentina (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Córdoba Province, Argentina, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Opening heading[edit]

There is also Córdoba Province, Spain. Córdoba Province should disambig.

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 11:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Ligera aclaración:
En el momento de La Conquista española (circa 1550), el actual territorio de la provincia argentina de Córdoba estaba poblado por las siguientes etnias: 1)hênia-kamiare (vulgarmente llamados "comechingones" o "indios barbudos") que habitaban en las Sierras de Córdoba (Sierras en este caso significa "cordilleras" -ranges en ingles-), en el Oeste y noroeste de Córdoba. 2) La etnia het o "antiguos pampas" que habitaba toda la extensa región pampeana del centro, este y sur de la provincia de Córdoba. 3) la etnia salavinon ("salavirón") que habitaba el noreste de La provincia de Córdoba, y la etnia olongasta (una parcialidad de la etnia diaguita) que habitaba el extremo noroeste de la provincia de Córdoba. Todas esas etnias se extinguieron antes de concluir el s XIX. Quedan (como en USA o Canadá) sus descendientes muy mixeds con los descendientes de europeos (argentinos descendientes de italians del norte, spaniards, germans, armenians etc.)

En cuanto a los "ranqueles" (nombre euténtico en "araucano" o mapudungun : rankulche), esta etnia surgió bastante despues de La Conquista española, vivía en el extremo sur de lo que ahora es la provincia de Córdoba, los rankulche o rankilche eran una etnia mixogénica ('mixed') constituida desde fines de s XVIII por descendientes de los antiguos het y por descendientes de mapuches ("araucanos")...más descendientes de cautivas con origenes europeos. La etnia rankulche ("ranquel") ya no existe en la provincia de Córdoba, aunque se encuentran algunas miles de personas de esa etnia en el oeste de la provincia de La Pampa.


I've been unable to comfirm your statement that the Ranqueles apeared after the arrival of the spaniards. Texts like this suggest otherwise. Anyhow, both Ranqueles and Pampas-het were not that important in the present territory of Cordoba Province; perhaps it would be best to leave only the Comechingones and Sanavirones. -Mariano(t/c) 07:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Alternative capital[edit]

See this and this among others. I also went "WTF!?" when I saw Río Cuarto added as "alternative capital" but it seems De la Sota did do something to name it that. Don't ask me what it means. I'd leave it out of the main infobox but ideally someone with access to better sources should check what the "alternative capital" status means. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong capital in the profile[edit]

In the province profile, the capital city is named as RAWSON, which is the capital of CHUBUT province.

Please, edit and correct it for Cordoba (city).

Thanks.

Paulo Agria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.226.74 (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (March 2011)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)



Córdoba Province (Argentina)Córdoba Province, Argentina — Per WP:NCDAB. When we disambiguate geographic places by their higher administrative division, we use "province, country", not "province (country)". --MBelgrano (talk) 00:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. There is a weak but perceptible consensus for moving back to the comma form. I have benefitted from a discussion with Vegaswikian. He closed one of the previous moves. His suggestion is that this be viewed as a country-specific precedent for Argentina. I have argued at Andrewa's talk page that the actual practice is inconsistent. I hope we don't have continuous turmoil in the future about it, but this is just a local decision which reasonably should apply across Argentina. Good Olfactory, who did the speedy move on 15 December that people are objecting to, doesn't seem to mind this result, as you can see from his last comment below. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)



– The articles were recently speedily renamed, despite the previous move requests. But, according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Disambiguation, the DAB in the title is used with a comma, not parentheses. There is no such convention of using parentheses for administrative divisions and commas for cities as mentioned in the move summary, in fact the second page is explicit that the comma is used for "the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions", leaving the parentheses for natural features. Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support -- Version with comma is much more satisfactory per previous RM. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
revoted below with fuller comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just so you know, on WP, the parenthetical disambiguation is used pretty much universally across all the countries of the world for first-level administrative subdivisions. So the guideline is contrary to practice in this instance. So I kind of oppose this change unless all the other countries' subdivisions are going to be implemented this way as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
    • See WP:POINT. If you think that the current guidelines do not go according to the established usages, then propose to change the guidelines to reflect such usage. If it is so "universal", it shouldn't be hard. Otherwise, do not blame pages that, in the meantime, follow that is specifically written that way. By the way, if there was a successful move request before, then you can't simply move it back to the old name just because you think it's "right", you must consider it a controversial move and open a move request instead. I open this move request, rather than just reverting your move, just because of courtesy. Cambalachero (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
      • My "point" is that I think the guideline might at this stage be in need of amending, as you suggest. Right now the article is in line with all the other articles for first-level administration subdivisions, and there is no move to change them except for these ones. So no, I see no need to make an exception here from the de facto standard. I'm not clear on what you mean by "don't blame pages", as I'm not blaming anyone or anything, whether user or WP page. I think we just disagree on our approaches. I favour in-practice uniformity over following a guideline that is widely neglected or ignored. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Really a multiple move request, see

Would the subcategories of Category:Provinces of Argentina also be renamed? Andrewa (talk) 07:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The categories could easily be nominated/moved depending on the outcome of this discussion. I can take the responsibility of doing this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, so what you're saying is, this move proposal really proposes moving the categories too?
I think then that you should relist this as a multiple move, this time including the other four and the relevant categories, and note this at all the other talk pages. The bot associated with the multiple move template will post heads-ups for the other articles, not sure about the categories, that might need to be done manually. Then centralise discussion on this talk page. Andrewa (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
No, moving the categories requires a separate process, but it's relatively easy after an article name is changed. It can just be done via WP:CFDS. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree that it's not essential to post heads-ups for the categories now, it just might save some time in the long run IMO. No big deal. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The other provinces do not need to be renamed, becasue they do not have the same name as any elsewhere; and I would oppose such a nom, while I am suppoorting this one (see Below). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, only the five names that need disambiguation are under discussion, the undisambiguated names stay that way for the time being at least. Sorry if that wasn't clear before. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I would at this stage oppose opposition retracted see below Andrewa (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC) this move if the other four articles were not similarly moved, and/or if the categories weren't also moved. Category talk pages aren't all that often watched, so the heads-ups there won't achieve much, but IMO they should be posted anyway. The affected categories that I see are exactly the ones corresponding to the five affected articles:

So, is there support for moving all of these? Or other opinions? Andrewa (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment I turned the move request into a multiple page move request, as requested. The mention to the previous move request still stands, as all pages (not just this one) were moved after a move request, and then returned to the old name just by Good Ol’factory initiative. So far, the only users that took part in the other talk pages are me, Peterkingiron and Good Ol’factory, and we are here as well. There's also a support of user Bejnar at all the old move requests (except for Tierra del Fuego, uncontested), which confirms that these pages should not had been speedily moved to the current names as done by Good Ol’factory Cambalachero (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • That's fine, if it's thought that the Argentina ones should be different from all the other first-level administrative division articles for those in other countries. I still haven't seen a great reason as to why we shouldn't treat like articles alike in this regard. I've queried about the discrepancy here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Still support -- With geographical entities, the best solution is to give more of the postal address, following a comma. This is a much more natural format, as it provides a further description to the subject. This differs from people and inanimate subjects, where the undisambiguated name is in fact the full name of the subject. Thus the categories for Birmingham are at "Birmingham, England" to avoid miscategorisation for "Birmingham, Alabama". We have Boston, Lincolnshire because Boston, Massachusetts is a much larger city, not Boston (Lincolnshire). These are of course English examples, nbut there is no reason for not applying this worldwide. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The examples you give are not on point, because they involve cities, not first-level administrative subdivisions. Of far more relevance would be examples like Victoria (Australia), Colón Department (Honduras)‎, Centre Region (Burkina Faso), Gangwon Province (South Korea), North West (South African province)‎, La Paz Department (Honduras)‎, Santa Rosa Department (Guatemala)‎, Western Region (Ghana)‎, North-East District (Botswana), and on and on. Why are we wanting to treat the Argentine ones differently? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Naming conventions for geographical entities are not consistent across all regions, but rather differ from place to place, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). The rationale for this, as I understand it, is that just as English usage varies from place to place, so should the article names reflect these differences. Andrewa (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I realize that naming conventions vary from place to place, but (1) I don't see a stated convention for Argentine geographical places that has been stated in terms of it applying to provinces, and (2) it appears that the de facto convention for first-level administrative subdivisions is almost uniformly to place the country in parentheses. I suspect this is because it would be very rare for anyone from any country to refer to one of their first-level subdivisions and include ", COUNTRY" behind it. Do people in Argentina refer to "Córdoba Province, Argentina"? No‚ they just refer to "Córdoba Province". But because the term needs disambiguating, we use "Córdoba Province (Argentina)". That's the rationale for the current name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
          • (1) and (2) are true I think, but not particularly relevant and dealt with elsewhere in this discussion. The speculation that follows omits the fact that the provinces with the five names under discussion are (not surprisingly) all in Spanish-speaking countries, three in Spain, one in the Caribbean and all the others in continental South America. So (at the risk of further speculation) there's likely to be more awareness of the need to disambiguate outside of Wikipedia than in more general cases of ambiguity. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
            • So we agree there's no written convention that explicitly applies, and yet we would choose to extend a country-limited convention to apply rather than retain a cross-country de facto convention that is already in place. That seems arbitrary, if nothing else. I'd like to see some sort of rationale for choosing one over the other, but I suppose there is none apart from the balkanization that exists in WP, aided by Wikiprojects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
              • No, we agree that there's no stated convention for Argentine geographical places that has been stated in terms of it applying to provinces, but disagree on whether other guidelines are helpful. All Wikipedia conventions are both stated and written, because historically that's what we mean by the term in this context, see for example Wikipedia:naming conventions. For unwritten conventions we say practice or custom; For written ones policy, guideline, or in some cases still convention but that's falling from favour. I don't think the phrase de facto convention is particularly helpful, frankly, it's likely to confuse people in light of this now historical usage. Yes, in this case I think it's better to follow the local guideline than to conform to the practice of other geographical areas, unless the Wikiproject decides otherwise. Andrewa (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
                • It's just an arbitrary or personal preference-based decision which approach to take, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • As pointed in the guideline talk page, the many examples cited earlier are misleading. Only one of them is edited frequently, the others are just neglected articles, and hardly count. Besides, a comma or brackets is a rather technical point, that many users may not even notice unless specifically checking things for an article nomination. Which means, we can't assume that the many users that edit that article agree with the current usage just because they did not try to fix it. There was a try... in 2005, discussed by three people. Is this supposed to be the "defacto convention" to go against the written convention? Sounds very weak to me Cambalachero (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • The ones I listed were chosen entirely at random. There are quite a few country subdivisions of this level that are disambiguated in one form or another, and from a rough look about 80% or more use the parentheses format. I think that the arguments you make against the current name can be made as strongly against the comma format, so as I mentioned above, it appears rather arbitrary which way articles are named currently. By "de facto convention" I just mean what exists currently on the ground, and right now it is a strong majority that use the parentheses. I have no idea how much thought has gone in to any of the article names individually or collectively, and I wouldn't presume to be able to figure that out based merely on edit histories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support all, including the category moves. I have posted a heads-up at Wikipedia:Argentina-related regional notice board but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Argentina seems clear enough. Andrewa (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
    • To me, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Argentina sounds like it's talking about how to disambiguate a city or other populated place rather than an entire province. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
      • True, it's not explicitly about provinces, but in the absence of any other standard there's no reason I can see that it would not apply to them too. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Naming the specific topic articles reads in part With place-names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division, it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, which does apply. Note that in this guideline at least the level of the administrative division is not significant, but rather, the same approach is taken at all levels. Andrewa (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
        • But the same approach is not taken in other countries' first-level administration subdivisions, so why should it be taken here? There is another de facto standard that is widely applied. Do people in Argentina refer to "Córdoba Province, Argentina"? No‚ they just refer to "Córdoba Province". But because the term needs disambiguating, we use "Córdoba Province (Argentina)". Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Similarly, such arguments for unity of disambiguation style are not accepted elsewhere in Wikipedia, so why accept them here? Agree that it is something of a mess at present, and I'd like more uniformity overall too, in the treatment of diacritics most notably. But there seems little hope of it. Andrewa (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
            • They are de facto accepted in what currently exists, though, and not using parentheses will go against that general pattern. As you say, that's not untypical within WP, which seems to have some major balkanization issues as far as style issues go. But the only way we can make progress is to make decisions that do engender consistency. The majority here appear to want to go away from that, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Agree that there's some degree of balkanization on article titles, disagree that the only way we can make progress is to make decisions that do engender consistency, but as I said before, personally I'd like more consistency in article titles overall. Not convinced that this particular attempt is helpful, however. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
                • It's not the only way, but it certainly would help move in that direction. To move these as proposed will advance the balkanization, as far as I can see. Argentina articles will be in a self-contained shell, with the majority of others differing from them. I've found Wikiproject members are generally happy with such self-balkanization, while those who work across a wide range of topics are less happy with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • Agree with regard to Wikiprojects. It's fascinating to me that we allow this sort of lobbying, and ban it otherwise. But Wikiprojects achieve a lot, and I can't see any way of designing a system that discourages this sort of lobbying, let alone any hope of having it accepted. Andrewa (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • I think they are a net benefit; their operation just often has some less desirable side-effects to the overall project. It's probably an unavoidable consequence of everyone working within their own spheres of interest or expertise. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: And who ever said that first-level administration subdivisions have, or need to have, special rules distinct from other subdivisions? This is only a point raised by Good Ol’factory. For the guideline pages, a first-level administration subdivision is not much different from a second or third level one. In fact, there's Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Administrative subdivisions, which does not say a word about levels of divisions. Cambalachero (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I have never been referencing any "special rules" that are written down. I've been referencing what exists in reality—de facto conventions rather than de jure ones, in other words. Theory vs. practice. The guideline that keeps getting referenced is clearly not widely enforced or applied, so I don't see the use of continuing to refer to a guideline that is a dead letter. But ultimately, we don't have to do anything on WP, which is why opinions differ on various matters. I believe that there should be some consistency in certain naming issues across countries—others care only about intra-country consistency. I don't believe there is a right or a wrong approach in these matters—you just have to look at the results and make a judgment call. I think too many users do get caught up in the righteousness of their cause, but I don't think it's that kind of debate. It's just one of differing opinions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Disagree that any of the guidelines appealed to above is a dead letter. Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
        • In this context, they appear to be, since they are widely ignored or not implemented. That's what "dead letter" means—they exist in print but have no discernible effect, which seems to be the case with this level of subdivision. I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but I've examined things fairly closely in the context of this subdivision level, and I don't see any evidence that the guideline has had any relevance up to now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Disagree. I'm afraid all of your latest replies are simply playing with words IMO, as they say nothing that is new, they just restate your position. Your opinions are noted, and there's no need to repeat them.
          • They seem to challenge quite a lot of current Wikipedia policy and polity. Some of them I certainly support. Hang in there, it's hard work changing such things. Andrewa (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I'll restate a position as much as I please, especially if another user is responding to what I write. If you don't want a user to keep going on, I find the best way is usually to stop yourself from responding to their comments. I'm OK having a continued discussion; if you want it to stop, you can just stop. My previous comment was meant to explain what I meant by "dead letter", since you just said you disagreed, but didn't really explain why you didn't think it was a dead letter. I thought more examination of the issue of how much the guideline is actually implemented in the broader context could be helpful in figuring out where to go from here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
              • And I won't stop you. IMO you're wasting everyone's time by doing it, but mostly your own. The term dead letter when qualified by with this level... seems meaningless. There's no claim that the guideline is a dead letter in any normal sense, rather this is an obscure way of restating the claim that the guideline does not apply in this case. It seems pure rhetoric. Andrewa (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
                • You can leave the worry about my time to me, I can handle it—as for everyone else's time, users can read as they wish but are under no obligation to, as always on WP. To put my thoughts in a less shorthanded way since you don't like how I phrased it: outside of this discussion, this guideline appears to have had no discernible effect on the article names chosen for articles of first-level administrative subdivisions of countries. If you could provide evidence to the contrary, it could progress things on where to go from here, but I haven't seen anything yet. If you don't want to go anywhere from here, that's fine too, you just don't have to respond to my comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Oppose all until a guideline is put in place. As it is, NCGN doesn't address administrative divisions or federated units. Moving these will be inconsistent with how we currently format most country division titles. Nightw 09:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Check again the links in the begining, there are guidelines supporting this. You can't say that NCGN does not address administrative divisions, when it clearly says "the names of cities, towns, villages and other settlements, as well as administrative divisions". Good Ol’factory is just playing rethoric games: the lack of a hyper-specific guideline for first-level administrative divisions does not mean that there is no guideline, it means that the general guideline applies and nobody ever thought it was needed to treat first-level administrative divisions any different than any administrative division. So far, he just pointed cherry-picked articles, not any discussion showing anyone sharing this need to consider first-level administrative divisions as an unique and special subgroup of articles deserving special treatment. Cambalachero (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not "playing games"—I'm making a good-faith effort to assess if and to what degree the guideline has support and/or has been consciously implemented or consciously ignored by users in the selection of administrative subdivision names. It appears to be you who is playing games with what I have said and thereby have misrepresented it. Why when an editor attempts to ask questions that perhaps challenge another user's preconceptions of how things are or how they should be does the user get attacked for "game playing"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Presuming there is no local idiom to take precedence, I don't see a problem with applying the written guidelines. However, I also agree with Good that these guidelines do not appear to reflect current consensus. I don't know how much adopting a different style for subdivisions has been entertained, but if this is one of those discussions where the result goes towards determining a wider consensus for a guideline, I prefer parentheses for subdivisons. Nightw 14:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support move all. This type of article naming seems to be part of an emerging pattern that I like and makes perfect sense. Removing the parentheses in such cases makes for cleaner article titles. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Argentina notified. Nightw 15:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Good idea [1] and I've added a heads-up at Wikipedia:Argentina-related regional notice board as well. Andrewa (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

The discussion above seems to be about two matters only:

  • Some contributors believe that the proposed move is contrary to formal guidelines, others that it complies.
  • Some contributors believe that the proposed move is contrary to undocumented but established practice, others that it complies.

Apart from these two objections, we would have consensus in favour of the move.

Also, those objecting to the move do so as part of a campaign to change current policy and practice, which allow different geographical areas to decide on local article naming conventions.

If this move request fails on this occasion, would it be reasonable to then propose a local geographical names convention recommending the comma format for this level of geographical names in this area? There seem no policy-based grounds above for opposing such a convention (apart from WP:IAR of course), and there would then be no grounds for opposing the move. Andrewa (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. Whether this particular proposal fails or is implemented, I think it may be worthwhile to work from the other end. Some other administrative divisions could be nominated for renaming to one style or the other, and the consensus/preference for each of the competing styles could be assessed. The reason I would approach it this way is because from my understanding, the guidelines are supposed to reflect consensus, and it seems backward to me to write a guideline first and then apply it to actual articles. (This presupposes that a discussion on proposals to move particular articles would gain more attention than a guideline discussion, which may or may not be a safe presumption.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
It can work either way. Guideline pages are updated by consensus, and are supposed to reflect consensus exactly as you say. When consensus changes, sometimes this is first expressed by individual cases that ignore existing guidelines, and the guideline is subsequently updated to reflect this new consensus as expressed in these decisions. Other times, the change is first expressed in dissatisfaction with specific case decisions based on existing guidelines, which leads to a proposal to overhaul the guidelines in question, and these decisions are then reversed to reflect the new consensus expressed in the new guidelines.
But my suspicion is that updating the guidelines in this case is pointless instruction creep. They seem clear enough to me. Except that I get to a different conclusion than you do based on them Andrewa (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Whichever way would attract more attention would probably be the best initial approach, then. They may be clear enough as they currently stand, but my point has always been that they are not followed in practice in certain contexts, which indicates either a passive or an active disregard for what currently exists. But so far at the discussion I've started on the guideline talk page, there have been more users comment against the guideline applying to administrative divisions than in favour of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion you have started at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#First-level_administrative_subdivisions_for_countries seems to be you versus the rest of the world so far, in that there seems to be a rough consensus there that the balkanization which you are so passionate to address is not an issue. Andrewa (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I guess we read the discussion differently because I have seen some fairly productive suggestions and I feel like my comments are being well taken. I'm not really trying to push for a particular result; the discussion was more to bring up the issue and get input. The balkanization issue is a side one and not particularly the focus of the discussion. It is more an observation of the cause of the problem, not the problem itself. No discussion is going to solve that, nor is that discussion intended to. You should probably leave the opining on what users feel passionate about to the users themselves, though, since I think you have misinterpreted my comments and intent somewhere along the line. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Córdoba Province, Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Córdoba Province, Argentina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)