Talk:Districts of Portugal

Article naming

This section is referred to at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Portuguese-related_articles)#District_names

Dispute

On 8 Oct I was WP:BOLD and moved the articles from "X (district)" to "X District". This was contested the first time 19 Oct 17:52 by User:Husond on my talk page "Your district moves are [...] against the the manual of style, please move back.". He also asked that this topic shall be discussed. I asked where. He wrote " probably WP:MOS-PT, WP:RFC, the talk page of a major article on a Portuguese town, the talk page of Portugal itself, The Village Pump, the talk page of WP:MOS, etc. ". Further " I further bring to your attention that titles such as ... "Braga District" are against the Manual of Style. The subject type for geographical entries goes in parenthesis -... "Braga (district)". Please let me know if you can revert all by yourself of if you need assistance. But the quicker it is done, the easier it will be. "

I cited WP:NCGN "if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved" to show that I think "X District" is not against any WP rule. In the MOS as claimed by Husond I could not find anything about that.

With respect to WP:NCGN he [replied] "That's just a sentence explaining its point, there's no convention about format there.". Still not bringing any details on the claimed MOS violation.

To make my WP:NCGN citation more clear I wrote "If they used it I guess this format is not against MoS.".

There is also no haste for move to X (district) needed. This is so, because for the districts of Portugal, there is a 1:1 relationship between X (district) and X District and they can be moved at any point in time.

Husond did not made any more comments on the naming of the districts.

While knowing that his point of view is contested he moved the articles 20 Oct 19:24 e.g. Aveiro District to Aveiro (district). As covered by WP:BRD I reverted four of these moves immediately and asked him to stop these moves since it is Edit warring. I then stopped moving anymore back myself, since I think it is better to discuss the matter.

As of 24 Oct no single more feedback on the naming controversy by Husond. No additional details with respect to the claimed MOS violation. TrueColour (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue together with two other were brought to ANI by Husond. There is no more activity. I will move the districts back to "X District" format. TrueColour (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind the bold, revert, discuss cycle you mentioned above is that if your bold edits are reverted, you don't revert back to your disputed version, you attempt to reach consensus by discussion. You made multiple disputed page moves, they were reverted, a couple of editors expressed objections to the moves. In my opinion, at that point a preferable course of action would have been to continue discussion rather than to wait a few days and reinstate the disputed page moves, considering that there's no indication that your arguments have persuaded the other involved parties.

At this point I would favor addressing the naming issue by reverting to the previous names before TrueColour's disputed moves, and filing either a naming/geography RFC or a group requested move, with pointers to the discussion from relevant talk pages. --Muchness (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You say: "You made multiple disputed page moves, they were reverted, a couple of editors expressed objections to the moves." - This is not true. True is: I moved the district pages. Nobody had a problem until 12 days later /one/ single editor moved them. We could also move them back to their initial names, "District of X" right? Where is the consensus for the moves to "X (district)"? I do not know why you want to move them back without consensus. This is all work and waste of time. If the topic is under discussion nobody should move anything. This is similar to edit warring. But there is no discussion. Beside me, nobody is talking about the naming. Pointers from discussions are set to this very page. TrueColour (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons

There are several reason why I think the articles about the districts of Portugal should be moved back to the format "X District". See the details below:

1. The class name "distrito" is part of the Portuguese name. This translates to "district" in English. This translation is used in English WP, in page content and also by those that want to name the pages "X (district)" in the parenthesis.
2. A word by word translation from Portuguese leads to "District of Aveiro". The pages itself say in the infobox "District of X". The variable in the template that stores this value is called "official name". While I think this is not the official name, I think this looks like a good translation. Another way to translate the name would be "X District".
3. Wikipedia:NCGN#Administrative subdivisions says "if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved" . I don't understand that exactly, but at least it shows that the format "X District" is ok to be used.
4. Wikipedia:MOS#Geographical items says "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". This is better achieved by X District. Also linking is easier. Compare [[Aveiro District]] with [[Aveiro (district)|district of Aveiro]]. Note that district of [[Aveiro (district)|Aveiro]] is not clear to the reader. He may think the blue link points to the city article. [[district of Aveiro]] could be used, but this method is not seen anywhere in English WP for these kind of districts. Exception: District of Columbia.
5. Almost all other sets of district articles in the English WP use "X District". For Portugal it may be interesting to see that Portuguese-language Mozambique as well as Spanish-language Panama, Paraguay, Peru use X District. The only major exception from this format are from German- and Luxembourgish-speaking Central Europe that partially use "X (district)". Except for Luxembourg this format is not applied to the whole set. A list is provided below.

TrueColour (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

List of district article sets and page name format

Since the list might be of broader interest, I moved it to: Talk:District#List of district article sets and page name format, TrueColour (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC

One user, namely User:TrueColour, thinks districts should be named "X District" while User:Husond thinks they should be named "X (district)". TrueColour brought several reason. Husond said it is against MOS. What is your opinion? See the reasoning above. TrueColour (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Districts of Portugal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715185933/http://www.publico.pt/Pol%C3%ADtica/socrates-quer-maioria-absoluta-promete-referendo-a-regionalizacao-e-defende-casamento-homossexual_1356573 to http://www.publico.pt/Pol%C3%ADtica/socrates-quer-maioria-absoluta-promete-referendo-a-regionalizacao-e-defende-casamento-homossexual_1356573

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

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) 13:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)