Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 15:21, 6 March 2008.

List of autonomous areas by country

edit

I am nominating this article because I believe that it meets all of the criteria required for a Featured List. Gary King (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments I was asked to take a look at this list by the nominator. Though I've never been active with lists, let alone featured lists, I've had a look around others and it appears to meet the criteria. Every country is referenced.

Resolved stuff from PeterSymonds (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few concerns that may be completely fine (as I say, I've never reviewed a FLC)

  • For Serbia, it says "disputed status". Does this need a ref?
    • Done I've updated it by removing "disputed status" and instead using a reference to more clearly explain the current status. Gary King (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the references is in Chinese. Is this allowed on the English Wikipedia? Excellent.
    • Done After browsing through several articles related to China, it appears that none uses Chinese references. I've replaced it with an English one. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although leads aren't referenced in articles, because they're discussed further on, this might not be the same in lists. Eg. "This list includes areas that are both internationally recognized and generally unrecognized"; is this referenced further on? I can't see it.
    • Done I've referenced both with examples; for instance, I've included Hong Kong as a region that is internationally recognized by using the United Nations as a reference. I've used Kosovo as an example of a region that is not internationally recognized. Gary King (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit concerned that the box directly below the "autonomous areas" header is also unreferenced. Also, footnote 1 is a note, not a reference.*
  • "In some contexts country and state is also used for some subnational entities." "Some" is considered a weasel word, so please be more specific.
    • Commment (to 2 items above) Nothing I can do about that besides removing the box. It is a template and was created and placed in the article by an administrator, so I assume that the person knows what they are doing. The box also exists on List of countries, which is an FL, so I left it in this article. Gary King (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. As I said, because I've not had great experience with lists, I'm no expert, so my comments may be useless. Good luck!

PeterSymonds | talk 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments * I'm a bit sleepy and I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject so I only have two comments, and if either of them seem silly, just say so and ignore it!

  • A Description column would be nice, if possible, to be able to explain when and why these cities, countries etc are autonomous.
Comment A column wouldn't work because some of the countries have more than one autonomous area, and each would most likely have a different explanation. I've opted to add the year that the areas gained autonomy - only if I can find it (I'm looking primarily in the associated Wikipedia articles). Hopefully this won't be a requirement for this article. If you would prefer to not see any years rather than seeing only some of the areas with years, then let me know - but I think that it's better to at least have some years rather than none. It'll become complete eventually, but it will require much more time than all of the other comments on this page combined. Gary King (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, including the years is a pretty good idea, and would suffice for me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so that's done. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the UK, should the Channel Islands and Isle of Man be included?
  • OK. But that wasn't a "they should be included", it was "should they?". I honestly don't know, and if you've included them because I said it, I would double check. Also, for this reason, I don't think I can fully support, because who knows if any others are missing right now? If you can absolutely reassure me that it is full and complete, then of course I will. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yep, I did double check before adding them. The reason they were not there before is because that section is for "constituent country (with devolution)", which is a unique type of autonomous area to the United Kingdom. The other countries typically have areas called autonomous region so all autonomous regions are listed there; Channel Islands and Isle of Man are actually not constituent countries and therefore shouldn't have been added there. I've moved them to a new self-governing crown dependency section. Gary King (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I found one more that is not included on the list: Kuna Yala, autonomous from Panama. I just did a Google search for "is an autonomous". There may be more that are missing, but the first 30 hits are mostly Chinese, and as this list says "over 100", it's not easy to check. So again, until the list is completely complete, I'll have a hard time supporting. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, well I think that at any point, it will be extremely difficult to prove that the list is indeed complete. Plus, for several regions, there are different definitions as to whether or not they are indeed autonomous or not and should belong on the list. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reference [1], [2], [3], [23], and [24] are footnotes, not references. I would use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} in a separate footnotes section. [23] and [24] would then need <ref>...</ref> tags placed to back up the two statements.
Done Gary King (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It looks like only 2 were done and the other 3 were removed? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 13:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The ones that I removed were not required. They did not add anything to the article. Gary King (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Native term isn't necessary for me, as long as the description of whether it's a autonomous city, region, county, etc is kept in.
Comment I'll leave it there because I've got an entry for every country already. Gary King (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unless the list can become complete. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said, even if I told you that the list was complete, there would be no way to be able to prove that, because every existing autonomous region uses different definitions that may not agree with what the definition that the article uses, but you may feel that it is included. Some governments are sketchy on the exact details on their autonomy for political reasons. Gary King (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the list then doesn't meet the criteria?
  • 1.(a).3: "finite and complete" — I could understand it not being finite on its own though, as obviously, regions could announce their autonomacy(?) in the future.
  • 1.(b) and (c): "comprehensive" and "factually accurate" — because what's to say it is?
  • 1.(d): "Uncontroversial" — if every regions defines autonomacy differently, the list could find itself disputed.
I am willing to change my "oppose" if you can explain why you think it does meet the criteria, or (without being facetious) why it should be an exception.
Well, my response is that as long as an area governs itself and has freedom from an external authority, as it states in the article, then it will be included. All of the areas on the list are governed by what is much like a federal government, and most of them have their own parliament, the highest level of government possible for a region. Gary King (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 06:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And every "country" this currently applies to is definitely included in the list? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, or unless someone decides to declare themselves an autonomous region during these next few days. I wouldn't know if that happens because I don't keep up with the news :) Gary King (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - grudgingly! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Any reason why the text in the Autonomous areas section is in a box? It may be because it's like another FL but I can't see the justification for it. Most of the contents is better suited to the See also section (in fact one of the articles is linked there, one isn't...)
Comment As I've mentioned above, it's a template that was added by an administrator. I'm leaving it there because it exists on other related lists such as List of countries. I have no control over its content. Gary King (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keen on the placement of [1], really not that unreasonable to put it with [2] after the full stop.
Done Gary King (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Also, countries that include autonomous areas are often federacies." - prove it.
Done Referenced. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the references be provided in a separate Notes column? (I know, I always say this kind of thing - I just don't like seeing references butted up to words).
Done Gary King (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greece doesn't seem to have a native word for the autonomous region. In fact, several don't. Is that because a phrase doesn't exist, is in English or you don't know it?
Done I've listed the countries that are natively English-speaking. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page ranges in journal citation need to use en-dash.
Done Gary King (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this lot help. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support because the list meets all the criteria. A minor point: Footnotes and in-line references use the same numbers. Wouldn't be less confusing to use letters or Roman numerals for two footnotes instead of Arabic numerals that are already used for references? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - good work, you didn't make a notes column although you said you had, but it's not a deal-breaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what you mean by Notes column. I thought you were talking about a separate Footnotes section - could you please elaborate? Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant a separate column to contain the references instead of having them butted up against the country names. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah; I think I saw an article recently that was like that. If you can point me to one like that then it'd give me a better idea of how to go about it. (Design-wise, etc.) Gary King (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that kind of thing, but keep the references (i.e. [1], [2] etc) instead of in-line links. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - my only issue is whether you can combine the rows for the "references" column for countries with multiple types of autonomous reasons (i.e. China, Russia) to better show that the reference is citing all of them. Otherwise looks good. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're starting to get into fancy referencing styles that I know nothing about. If you could point me in the right direction, then I'll see if I can get that done or not :) Gary King (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that big a deal, and I can't see how you would do it anyway. Struck. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map does not mesh with the table - e.g. UK is not highlighted. Fixed
  • This isn't something I can do much about besides contacting several cartographers to build one for me. I've contacted a few in the past few days, but have only received a handful of replies, all either saying that the user is too busy, or that the user's computer won't work. If you know a cartographer who could update the map, then be my guest. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the problem. but as the map is not accurate, I suggest it should not be used. Currently it misleads; never a good thing. I'll have a think about whether anything else can be done to attract a cartographer. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevermind, I spent the time to learn my way around it and managed to color in the UK. I can color in between the lines! Gary King (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gridlines appear half-way through the table. Not orthodox. Looks like a CSS bug in Firefox?
  • Not sure what you mean, unless you are talking about how entries such as China break up into five different rows, which in that case is done purposely. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was seeing something odd at homre on firefox, which I'm not seeing this afternoon in work on IE. I'll get back to you on this one.--Tagishsimon (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a general CSS glitch in Firefox; I get the same problem (sometimes) too. A hard refresh usually resolves it. Gary King (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I've not characterised it, but it has, for the moment, gone away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And is back. I've asked for a second opinion on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#CSS table border problem showing up in Firefox, though I go with your firefox explanation. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, although I don't think it's caused by my article, otherwise I'd be using some very trippy CSS :) Could you try other articles with tables and see if they have the same issue after a few reloads? Gary King (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen the behaviour before, having looked at far too many wikipedia pages. But I'm not about to hunt out more tables for this eventuality ... I accept that your page is blameless and so this is not really an FLC matter so much as a WP:VP matter to be puzzled over. Hopefully we'll snag ourselves a table/css expert. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instances (areas became autonomous on the accompanying year) table header begs a question about the lack of dates against many items. Happy
  • This was an additional request made on this nomination page; it wasn't originally there, so I am just scrapping together the years that I can find for each area. Some are very difficult to find. If you would prefer to not see years at all rather than only some, then let me know, although someone has mentioned that they'd prefer to at least see some, while I prefer that, also. I have changed the text to add (areas became autonomous on the accompanying year, if available) and hopefully that helps. Gary King (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the changes that were discussed and you have incorporated. --DizFreak talk Contributions 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is the native term field suppose to provide a transliteration or the term in native script? Look the difference between China and Iraq. Eklipse (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done They are all transliterations now. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, but this column still confuses me. How is "autonomous province" a translation of English-speaking country (in Papua New Guinea and Philippine) or "Islami-Jamhouriyat-e-Kashmir" of "autonomous region" in Pakistan as indicated in the lead? Eklipse (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • English-speaking country is just saying that there is no transliteration other than the English phrase, which is listed on the second row like for other entries. Removing that line would make people think that there should be an entry there. For Pakistan, their area is a special case for them, so they do not have a unique name for their autonomous areas, even though the region fits within the article's criteria for inclusion. Gary King (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_autonomous_areas_by_country&oldid=1138485652"