Africa: Cape Verde Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
1. Should we have separate articles on islands and municipalities, in the cases where only one municipality covers the entire island?
2. For standardization purposes, a common layout for the titles should be used. Examples:
This is only an example; it most likely won't be usable if analyzed in depth. More suggestions are welcome.
3. Should we have articles on the parishes at all? What unique info would they have, besides statistical data and perhaps a description of the festivities of the patron saint's day? -- Waldir talk 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Before implementing this solution, I was thinking about one case (there might be more), Tarrafal village. There's one in São Nicolau and one in Santiago. It's right in top level so we cant leave it to be dealt with later. Perhaps Tarrafal, Cape Verde should be a disambiguation page, linking to "Tarrafal, São Nicolau" and "Tarrafal, Santiago".
Another solution would be using the "village, island" name as default, and "Village, Cape Verde" would redirect to them when there's only one, otherwise they'd be disambiguation pages. What do you think? -- Waldir talk 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, we could (since we decided to use the "Praia (municipality)" form for municipalities) keep the "Island, Cape Verde" form for the islands, since they don't overlap with any other entities. That would not only make it a more meaningful name (geographically speaking, at least) but most importantly it would prevent clashes with other islands in the world with the same name. The "Santiago island" forms would redirect to them, but if other articles were created (such as the São Vicente island from Brazil), the redirects would only have to be converted into a disambiguation page, without moves and such :) -- Waldir talk 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Cidade Velha is the name that should be used, but perhaps since it is referred in INE's database as "Cidade de Santiago de Cabo Verde", it is a similar case to Vila do Maio / Porto Inglês? In that case I believe we should redirect the official title to the colloquial one, and note the official name in the article in bold, pretty much as we see the full name of some people in biography articles when the article title only has the first and last name (or, in a much more close example, Cape Verde). Note however that I am not proposing to suppress a mention (or unbold it) of the colloquial name in the introductory section of these articles. Both names should be present in the first paragraph, in bold. (Gosh, I am writing too much!) Waldir talk 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Wow!! that page is all we needed to verify some of the information INE was lacking! Too bad http://www.incv.gov.cv/ is still inaccessible for registration (and anyway they don't have any B.O.s from before 2006, so it wouldn't be useful for this purpose...)
2. I agree that we should keep the long names and redirect from the short ones. That's basically the model I adopted in the dab page. Only one remark: I would use "Ribeira Brava, Cape Verde (municipality)" instead of "Ribeira Brava (municipality), Cape Verde", it feels more natural to me (and in most cases we would just have to add the (municipality) when they clash with other entities (typically islands). Those cases are stroke out in the working page (in the section Municipalities > targets). Apart from these exceptions, the Municipality, Cape Verde is good enough to prevent overlapping any other municipality in some remote country. Or did you mean, by long names, the form with both "cape verde" and "(municipality)" suffixes? I don't think it is necessary to be that extreme. It would of course be nicely standardized with no exceptions, but I think we have to think a bit esthetically, too...
3. Still in the "keeping the long names long" department, I used this criterion for most municipality targets, because it makes sense: without any suffix they are mostly only the name of a saint, which is a very common name to give to places. However, some of them have the "de Xxxx" suffix (they are marked as bold) and even though they were named as such do disambiguate between other place names inside Cape Verde, I believe it makes them unique enough (worldwide) to be kept as the targets an not the redirects.
4. About Cidade Velha: we both wrote wrongly the name of the municipality! I stroke out above to avoid repetition. Anyway, I just want to confirm: when you said "back from the days when the “Cidade da Ribeira Grande de Cabo Verde” was the only city in C. Verde.", did you really mean "Cidade da Ribeira Grande de Cabo Verde", or "Cidade da Ribeira Grande de Santiago" instead? Or perhaps the "de Cabo Verde" wasn't part of the official name? I'm just making sure so I can take care of the redirects properly when I get to the cities.
Waldir talk 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait a moment... we have previously agreed above about this! I'll copy the text from above, for convenience:
My suggestion would be (...) for the villages (or towns) to use the model “town, island” for each specific case. (...) Ten Islands (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Another solution would be using the "village, island" name as default, and "Village, Cape Verde" would redirect to them when there's only one, otherwise they'd be disambiguation pages. What do you think? --Waldir talk 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- O. K. Ten Islands (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
So basically, we originally decided to use name, cape verde for towns, then decided to change to name, island since there would be clashes among towns (such as Tarrafal). Then, because this freed some names (the ones that would be clashes between municipalities and towns, as you referred), we agreed on keeping "name, cape verde" for municipalities.
So the cities/towns aren't losing the "name, cape verde" because the municipalities (or islands) took them, but the other way around: the municipalities took them because the cities/towns freed them.
Do I make any sense? -- Waldir talk 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Islands | Municipalities | Cities or Towns | notes. |
---|---|---|---|
Assomada | |||
Boa Vista | Boa Vista | ||
Brava | Brava | ||
Calheta de São Miguel | |||
Cidade Velha | I am not sure if the city has effectively changed its name to “Ribeira Grande de Santiago”; however, it seems that the practice in the English Wikipedia is to choose the name by which the things (objects, people, places) are more known; | ||
Cova Figueira | |||
Fogo | |||
João Teves | |||
Maio | Maio | ||
Mosteiros | Mosteiros | ||
Mindelo | |||
Nova Sintra | |||
Paul | |||
Pedra Badejo | |||
Picos | |||
Porto Inglês | The official name is “Vila do Maio” — nearly all the maps I have checked show “Vila do Maio (Porto Inglês)”; however, it seems that the practice in the English Wikipedia is to choose the name by which the things (objects, people, places) are more known; | ||
Porto Novo | Porto Novo | ||
Praia | Praia | ||
Ribeira Brava | Ribeira Brava | ||
Ribeira Grande | Ribeira Grande | ||
Ribeira Grande de Santiago | The official name bears the full form: “Câmara Municipal da Ribeira Grande de Santiago” | ||
Sal | Sal | ||
Sal-Rei | |||
Santa Catarina | |||
Santa Catarina do Fogo | The official name bears the full form: “Câmara Municipal de Santa Catarina do Fogo” | ||
Santa Cruz | |||
Santa Luzia | |||
Santiago | |||
Santo Antão | |||
São Domingos | São Domingos | ||
São Filipe | São Filipe | ||
São Lourenço dos Órgãos | |||
São Miguel | |||
São Nicolau | |||
São Salvador do Mundo | |||
São Vicente | São Vicente | ||
Tarrafal | Tarrafal | ||
Tarrafal de São Nicolau | Tarrafal de São Nicolau | The official name for the municipality bears the full form: “Câmara Municipal do Tarrafal de São Nicolau” I am not sure if the town is known as “Tarrafal de São Nicolau” or simply “Tarrafal”; | |
Vila das Pombas | |||
Adopted model: Xxxxx, Cape Verde justification: to avoid confusion with islands bearing the same name in other countries; |
Adopted model: Xxxxx, municipality, Cape Verde Xxxxx, Cape Verde, municipality Xxxxx, Cape Verdean municipality justification: to avoid confusion with...; |
Adopted model: Xxxxx, island justification: to avoid confusion with towns bearing the same name in Cape Verde; |
Thanks a lot for taking the time to build this table :) I thiiink we have reached consensus, but I want to make sure about the disambiguation titles for the municipalities
I was going to argue in favor of my proposal, but I erased what I wrote and decided to go look for Wikipedia guidelines already written about it. There are LOTS of pages talking about this problem, but the most relevant for our case is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Determine prevalent usage and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#General rules. According to these, we could have the following options (excluding those that would clash with the previously agreed names for settlements and islands) (note that "municipality", as a qualifier suffix, never comes after a comma):
From these, I'd exclude the option 2, as it would prevent the usage of the pipe trick. The options 4 and 5 also seem to me a bit like pushing the line on those guidelines. For choosing between the two options left, Xxxxx, Cape Verde (municipality) and Xxxxx municipality (Cape Verde), I believe the first one is better, as it would render like this when used with the pipe trick: "Xxxxx, Cape Verde" while the other would become "Xxxxx municipality". The first one would be much more unambiguous, IMO.
Then the simplification part: With the model I propose, we'd drop the "(municipality)" prefix, using it only to prevent clashes with the islands. this is basically what I have proposed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde/Places/Dab#target4 2, but now I have two guidelines to back me up :P
After we finally settle this issue, we should create a Cape-Verde specific guideline and link it from Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Specific countries. So, do you agree with my proposal? To make it clear, it is Xxxxx, Cape Verde for municipalities whose names don't clash with island names, and Xxxxx, Cape Verde (municipality) for those who do. And simply Xxxxx for those that really unique (these are marked in bold in the /dab subpage). -- Waldir talk 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is about the current setup of the municipalities of Cape Verde, where the four islands below, and the municipalities with the same name, have separate articles:
However, the four islands and municipalities cover exactly the same territories. So I think it makes sense to merge the articles together, and not have separate articles, because what applies to the island also applies to the municipality, and vice versa.
A similar example can be found for the provinces of Indonesia. Here, some provinces cover more than one island, some provinces cover only part of one island, and some provinces cover exactly one island. For example, the island of Bali cover the same territory as the province of Bali. We do not have separate articles, one for the island, and one for the province, as this would not make any sense. (Contrast this with Maluku and Maluku (province), which are separate articles because they cover different territories.)
I think the article of any of the above Cape Verdean islands can be easily changed to reflect that it is both an island and a municipality. We can just add one sentence at the end of the introduction paragraph:
Hope to hear your opinion on this matter. Chanheigeorge ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The articles have now been merged by NickPenguin. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Africa: Cape Verde Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
1. Should we have separate articles on islands and municipalities, in the cases where only one municipality covers the entire island?
2. For standardization purposes, a common layout for the titles should be used. Examples:
This is only an example; it most likely won't be usable if analyzed in depth. More suggestions are welcome.
3. Should we have articles on the parishes at all? What unique info would they have, besides statistical data and perhaps a description of the festivities of the patron saint's day? -- Waldir talk 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Before implementing this solution, I was thinking about one case (there might be more), Tarrafal village. There's one in São Nicolau and one in Santiago. It's right in top level so we cant leave it to be dealt with later. Perhaps Tarrafal, Cape Verde should be a disambiguation page, linking to "Tarrafal, São Nicolau" and "Tarrafal, Santiago".
Another solution would be using the "village, island" name as default, and "Village, Cape Verde" would redirect to them when there's only one, otherwise they'd be disambiguation pages. What do you think? -- Waldir talk 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
By the way, we could (since we decided to use the "Praia (municipality)" form for municipalities) keep the "Island, Cape Verde" form for the islands, since they don't overlap with any other entities. That would not only make it a more meaningful name (geographically speaking, at least) but most importantly it would prevent clashes with other islands in the world with the same name. The "Santiago island" forms would redirect to them, but if other articles were created (such as the São Vicente island from Brazil), the redirects would only have to be converted into a disambiguation page, without moves and such :) -- Waldir talk 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Cidade Velha is the name that should be used, but perhaps since it is referred in INE's database as "Cidade de Santiago de Cabo Verde", it is a similar case to Vila do Maio / Porto Inglês? In that case I believe we should redirect the official title to the colloquial one, and note the official name in the article in bold, pretty much as we see the full name of some people in biography articles when the article title only has the first and last name (or, in a much more close example, Cape Verde). Note however that I am not proposing to suppress a mention (or unbold it) of the colloquial name in the introductory section of these articles. Both names should be present in the first paragraph, in bold. (Gosh, I am writing too much!) Waldir talk 16:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Wow!! that page is all we needed to verify some of the information INE was lacking! Too bad http://www.incv.gov.cv/ is still inaccessible for registration (and anyway they don't have any B.O.s from before 2006, so it wouldn't be useful for this purpose...)
2. I agree that we should keep the long names and redirect from the short ones. That's basically the model I adopted in the dab page. Only one remark: I would use "Ribeira Brava, Cape Verde (municipality)" instead of "Ribeira Brava (municipality), Cape Verde", it feels more natural to me (and in most cases we would just have to add the (municipality) when they clash with other entities (typically islands). Those cases are stroke out in the working page (in the section Municipalities > targets). Apart from these exceptions, the Municipality, Cape Verde is good enough to prevent overlapping any other municipality in some remote country. Or did you mean, by long names, the form with both "cape verde" and "(municipality)" suffixes? I don't think it is necessary to be that extreme. It would of course be nicely standardized with no exceptions, but I think we have to think a bit esthetically, too...
3. Still in the "keeping the long names long" department, I used this criterion for most municipality targets, because it makes sense: without any suffix they are mostly only the name of a saint, which is a very common name to give to places. However, some of them have the "de Xxxx" suffix (they are marked as bold) and even though they were named as such do disambiguate between other place names inside Cape Verde, I believe it makes them unique enough (worldwide) to be kept as the targets an not the redirects.
4. About Cidade Velha: we both wrote wrongly the name of the municipality! I stroke out above to avoid repetition. Anyway, I just want to confirm: when you said "back from the days when the “Cidade da Ribeira Grande de Cabo Verde” was the only city in C. Verde.", did you really mean "Cidade da Ribeira Grande de Cabo Verde", or "Cidade da Ribeira Grande de Santiago" instead? Or perhaps the "de Cabo Verde" wasn't part of the official name? I'm just making sure so I can take care of the redirects properly when I get to the cities.
Waldir talk 22:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Wait a moment... we have previously agreed above about this! I'll copy the text from above, for convenience:
My suggestion would be (...) for the villages (or towns) to use the model “town, island” for each specific case. (...) Ten Islands (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Another solution would be using the "village, island" name as default, and "Village, Cape Verde" would redirect to them when there's only one, otherwise they'd be disambiguation pages. What do you think? --Waldir talk 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- O. K. Ten Islands (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
So basically, we originally decided to use name, cape verde for towns, then decided to change to name, island since there would be clashes among towns (such as Tarrafal). Then, because this freed some names (the ones that would be clashes between municipalities and towns, as you referred), we agreed on keeping "name, cape verde" for municipalities.
So the cities/towns aren't losing the "name, cape verde" because the municipalities (or islands) took them, but the other way around: the municipalities took them because the cities/towns freed them.
Do I make any sense? -- Waldir talk 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Islands | Municipalities | Cities or Towns | notes. |
---|---|---|---|
Assomada | |||
Boa Vista | Boa Vista | ||
Brava | Brava | ||
Calheta de São Miguel | |||
Cidade Velha | I am not sure if the city has effectively changed its name to “Ribeira Grande de Santiago”; however, it seems that the practice in the English Wikipedia is to choose the name by which the things (objects, people, places) are more known; | ||
Cova Figueira | |||
Fogo | |||
João Teves | |||
Maio | Maio | ||
Mosteiros | Mosteiros | ||
Mindelo | |||
Nova Sintra | |||
Paul | |||
Pedra Badejo | |||
Picos | |||
Porto Inglês | The official name is “Vila do Maio” — nearly all the maps I have checked show “Vila do Maio (Porto Inglês)”; however, it seems that the practice in the English Wikipedia is to choose the name by which the things (objects, people, places) are more known; | ||
Porto Novo | Porto Novo | ||
Praia | Praia | ||
Ribeira Brava | Ribeira Brava | ||
Ribeira Grande | Ribeira Grande | ||
Ribeira Grande de Santiago | The official name bears the full form: “Câmara Municipal da Ribeira Grande de Santiago” | ||
Sal | Sal | ||
Sal-Rei | |||
Santa Catarina | |||
Santa Catarina do Fogo | The official name bears the full form: “Câmara Municipal de Santa Catarina do Fogo” | ||
Santa Cruz | |||
Santa Luzia | |||
Santiago | |||
Santo Antão | |||
São Domingos | São Domingos | ||
São Filipe | São Filipe | ||
São Lourenço dos Órgãos | |||
São Miguel | |||
São Nicolau | |||
São Salvador do Mundo | |||
São Vicente | São Vicente | ||
Tarrafal | Tarrafal | ||
Tarrafal de São Nicolau | Tarrafal de São Nicolau | The official name for the municipality bears the full form: “Câmara Municipal do Tarrafal de São Nicolau” I am not sure if the town is known as “Tarrafal de São Nicolau” or simply “Tarrafal”; | |
Vila das Pombas | |||
Adopted model: Xxxxx, Cape Verde justification: to avoid confusion with islands bearing the same name in other countries; |
Adopted model: Xxxxx, municipality, Cape Verde Xxxxx, Cape Verde, municipality Xxxxx, Cape Verdean municipality justification: to avoid confusion with...; |
Adopted model: Xxxxx, island justification: to avoid confusion with towns bearing the same name in Cape Verde; |
Thanks a lot for taking the time to build this table :) I thiiink we have reached consensus, but I want to make sure about the disambiguation titles for the municipalities
I was going to argue in favor of my proposal, but I erased what I wrote and decided to go look for Wikipedia guidelines already written about it. There are LOTS of pages talking about this problem, but the most relevant for our case is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Determine prevalent usage and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#General rules. According to these, we could have the following options (excluding those that would clash with the previously agreed names for settlements and islands) (note that "municipality", as a qualifier suffix, never comes after a comma):
From these, I'd exclude the option 2, as it would prevent the usage of the pipe trick. The options 4 and 5 also seem to me a bit like pushing the line on those guidelines. For choosing between the two options left, Xxxxx, Cape Verde (municipality) and Xxxxx municipality (Cape Verde), I believe the first one is better, as it would render like this when used with the pipe trick: "Xxxxx, Cape Verde" while the other would become "Xxxxx municipality". The first one would be much more unambiguous, IMO.
Then the simplification part: With the model I propose, we'd drop the "(municipality)" prefix, using it only to prevent clashes with the islands. this is basically what I have proposed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cape Verde/Places/Dab#target4 2, but now I have two guidelines to back me up :P
After we finally settle this issue, we should create a Cape-Verde specific guideline and link it from Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Specific countries. So, do you agree with my proposal? To make it clear, it is Xxxxx, Cape Verde for municipalities whose names don't clash with island names, and Xxxxx, Cape Verde (municipality) for those who do. And simply Xxxxx for those that really unique (these are marked in bold in the /dab subpage). -- Waldir talk 23:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This is about the current setup of the municipalities of Cape Verde, where the four islands below, and the municipalities with the same name, have separate articles:
However, the four islands and municipalities cover exactly the same territories. So I think it makes sense to merge the articles together, and not have separate articles, because what applies to the island also applies to the municipality, and vice versa.
A similar example can be found for the provinces of Indonesia. Here, some provinces cover more than one island, some provinces cover only part of one island, and some provinces cover exactly one island. For example, the island of Bali cover the same territory as the province of Bali. We do not have separate articles, one for the island, and one for the province, as this would not make any sense. (Contrast this with Maluku and Maluku (province), which are separate articles because they cover different territories.)
I think the article of any of the above Cape Verdean islands can be easily changed to reflect that it is both an island and a municipality. We can just add one sentence at the end of the introduction paragraph:
Hope to hear your opinion on this matter. Chanheigeorge ( talk) 15:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The articles have now been merged by NickPenguin. Jafeluv ( talk) 07:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)