Talk:Country subdivision
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Administrative division. |
Redirect to Administrative division
editThis article should not redirect to Administrative division. In ISO 3166, "country subdivision" also refers to a dependent territory, which is different from an administrative division. For example, in ISO 3166-2 (titled Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 2: Country subdivision code), Canada is divided into 13 country subdivisions: 10 provinces and 3 territories. In Canada, a territory is not an administrative division (see Provinces and territories of Canada). Therefore, I will edit this article accordingly. - The Aviv (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Territories of Canada are administrative divisions, not dependent territories. The whole idea of a dependent territory is that it is not a country subdivision, as it is not a proper part of the country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. In the introduction of Dependent territory, Åland of Finland is listed as an example. However, in ISO 3166-2, Åland is considered a country subdivision, and is given the code FI-AL (see ISO 3166-2:FI). Svalbard of Norway is also listed as an example of a dependent territory. However, in ISO 3166-2, Svalbard is considered a country subdivision as well, and is given the code NO-21 (see ISO 3166-2:NO). The same is true for:
- Therefore, the redirect to Administrative division is inaccurate. - The Aviv (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dependent territory isn't a very exact term, and in reality has lost most of its meaning. When something is described as a dependent territory, that is description which separates it from its administering state. That's why Norway insists Svalbard is not one, which would imply it is not part of Norway, insisting instead it is an administrative division, meaning it is part of their country. That is why country subdivision should not lead to dependent territory, as the connotations are completely different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- It seems you are correct. I am researching geographical databases, such as GeoNames and those offered by GeoDataSource. The term "administrative division" is used in place of ISO's "country subdivision", and refers to dependent territories as well as accepted administrative divisions. The article for administrative division should mention that the term often includes dependent territories. Therefore, I will edit the article for administrative division accordingly, and start a discussion over there. - The Aviv (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Dependent territory isn't a very exact term, and in reality has lost most of its meaning. When something is described as a dependent territory, that is description which separates it from its administering state. That's why Norway insists Svalbard is not one, which would imply it is not part of Norway, insisting instead it is an administrative division, meaning it is part of their country. That is why country subdivision should not lead to dependent territory, as the connotations are completely different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
editThere is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Administrative division which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)