Talk:Districts of Kyrgyzstan

Central Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal Districts of Kyrgyzstan is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Kyrgyzstan Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kyrgyzstan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Kyrgyzstan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KyrgyzstanWikipedia:WikiProject KyrgyzstanTemplate:WikiProject KyrgyzstanKyrgyzstan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)Reply

Raions of Kyrgyzstan → Districts of Kyrgyzstan – All the individual articles use the term "district". Same for the category. Use English, avoid jargon. Relisted. BDD (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC) relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Aleksandr Krymsky (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Raion is a perfectly acceptable word in English, and is not considered jargon. There may be a case for this move on the grounds of Wikipedia:Common name, but the proposer's inference is, quite simply, false. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Support, I guess because "raion" is not a word. But we use words like "arrondisment" freelu in English... I suppose I support because policy supports it but I'm a little torn. Red Slash 22:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Districts seems to be more common English term [1] then raions [2].--Staberinde (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Weak support, weak only because but I think a still better title for this article would be List of districts of Kyrgyzstan. Relisting to see what others think of this. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment: It used to be the case that all list pages had to be titled List of... That hasn't been the case for about two years, and it is now perfectly acceptable to title the page either Raions of Kyrgyzstan or Districts of Kyrgyzstan under the new guidance. Leaving out the List of... may well encourage someone to develop this into a bit more detail, giving some historical background, and a reasonable summary of the key statistics, on the lines of Civil parishes in Cornwall. Skinsmoke (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Comment: Can you give links or diffs to these policy or guideline pages or changes? But in any case it seems to me that in this case we should go one way or the other... either the scope of this article is just the list and it should named as such, or it's a stub of a larger article containing these lists and should be tagged with a stub template. I still tend to the list for now, to match the current scope, as I'm concerned that the more general article will be too large, but the addition of a couple of sections showing the material you want added and marked with {{sectstub}} could change that. But if there's a lot of material to add, suggest consider moving to the list name and creating a stub at Districts of Kyrgyzstan for the other material. No change of vote for now. Andrewa (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comment: As usual, you can never find the bloody thing when you need it. The matter came up under a Featured list review, when it was pointed out that the guidelines had changed, and now appears to be lost in the archives somewhere. The only thing I can find right now is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, which states:

Stand-alone lists (also referred to as list articles) are articles the main components of which are one or more embedded lists or series of items discussed in prose form. Such articles often, but not necessarily, indicate their list nature using titles beginning with "list of", "timeline of" or similar. Not all articles can easily be identified as list articles or non-list articles.

Skinsmoke (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comment: Found the specific section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Titles, in the final paragraph of that section:

Set index articles do not need to be titled with list of unless there is also a disambiguation page using that title. For example, Dodge Charger is a list of cars named Dodge Charger, but does not need to be titled List of cars named Dodge Charger. However, since Signal Mountain is a disambiguation page, the related set index article is at List of peaks named Signal Mountain.

Skinsmoke (talk) 04:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comment: To be honest, there is no reason why the addition of material would make this particular page too large (it isn't exactly overlarge as it stands). Any list article is supposed to have an introduction anyway, and the addition of a section, say, about the history of the district level in the country (when districts/raions were introduced), and what functions they serve, along with a paragraph summarising the largest, smallest, most populous, least populous, newest etc. would still leave the article well within the limits. This is exactly the sort of article the guidelines are referring to when they talk about Set index articles. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Relisting comment This is a technical relist only; Andrewa's relist on 24 February didn't go through, for whatever reason. This discussion can be closed from 3 March on. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Districts of Kyrgyzstan. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic