Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board/Archive 1

Archive 1

Settlement naming convention

User:Jaxhere has proposed a Chile section to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). It needs some discussion or agreement from the regular editors of Chile city/town articles. The initial discussion was at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Chile, but would be better continued here, with a conclusion reported there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: When I say "cities/towns", I include all centres of population a.k.a. settlements, no matter how small, i.e. all of "ciudades, pueblos, aldeas and caseríos". My dialect of English has a legal definition for "city", and all are called "towns". For me, "village" is only a quaint tourism and real estate marketing term. Sorry for any confusion I inadvertently introduced. This naming convention is proposed to cover articles about any of them. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On: Chile Settlement naming convention

User:ScottDavis has kindly contacted me and asked if I might be interested to read and comment on the proposed naming convention for articles about settlements in Chile. Certainly, I am interested in this issue and would like to seize the opportunity to comment here on a few points raised by previous wikipedia users.

What is a city and what is a town

The National Statistics Institute of Chile (INE – Chile) has divided Chilean settlements in four categories for its census reports [1]: ciudades, pueblos, aldeas and caseríos (roughly: cities, towns, villages and hamlets). Most ciudades, in this classification, have 5,000 inhabitants or more, while pueblos are usually in the 1,000 – 5,000 bracket; aldeas in the 300 – 1,000 one, and caseríos, at the bottom of the list. There are, though, some exceptions such as categorizing touristic settlements as ciudades, irrespective of their population. Also, small villages or hamlets belonging to a given comuna (municipality) but that have been engulfed by the urban sprawl of some adjacent city (located in a different comuna) have been labelled as ciudades, as well. This is the reason why some places of purely rural or outer suburban character have snaked their way and been listed as "cities" in the English language wikipedia, as have for instance such inconspicuous localities as Punta Diamante in the O'Higgins Region and Culenar and Villa Francia ("Talca absorption") in the Maule Region List of cities in Chile. In my opinion, these lists should be amended as should the paragraph beginning with: "A city is defined by the National Statistics Institute as an urban entity possessing more than 5,000 inhabitants".

In the US, too, many incorporated areas which have a very modest population, have been designated as cities. The criteria used by the INE – Chile for the categorization of settlements may seem too arbitrary (or even amusing to those not familiar with the reduced scale of smaller countries) but provides a sound database for further work. Certainly, the discussion on what is a city and what is a town is a legitimate and time-honoured one and the English language wikipedia offers a comprehensive review of this topic (City).

IMHO, this matter should be treated with a good dose of common sense for the purposes of the Chile settlement naming convention. Perhaps the INE-Chile classification system can be used as a base, but its scale may have to be changed and the strictly census-related convention of designating incorporated or touristic hamlets as ciudades, dropped altogether. Surely, the traditional British custom of designating towns with a cathedral as cities does not apply here! Ultimately, there is a wide grey zone in-between the extremes of population where some degree of informality reigns and it does not really matter whether a settlement is called a town or a city.

I found your explanation of the different classifications quite illuminating, however, I think it is important to underline the following:

In the proposed naming convention there is no distinction made about whether the article is about a city, town, or anything else ... the key is that the article is about a settlement. In this we are not concerned with regions, provinces, municipalities, comunas or any other kind of administrative or political division, except in the rare instance where it is necessary to differentiate between two settlements which have the same name but which are located in different places within the country.

Jaxhere 23:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a Comuna

A comuna (or municipio), in Chile, is the equivalent to the French commune, to the Italian comune or the Spanish municipio. The paragraph Chile#Administrative divisions provides a good starting point of this, rather uncomplicated matter of Administrative divisions in Chile. The regions are subdivided into provinces which are subdivided, in turn, into comunas. In Chile all settlements must exist within the territory of a comuna. In other words, there are no independent cities in the country as there are, for instance in the U.S. state of Virginia.

The great majority of Chilean comunas are named after their main settlement. There exist some exceptions due, for example, to some arrangement or compromise between competing towns (e.g. the comuna of Pelluhue whose seat is Curanipe) or to other, sometimes peculiar reasons (euphonical, as the case of the comuna of Río Claro, whose seat is the town of Cumpeo).

For this reason, it would not always be neccesary to list the name of the comuna and of its seat separately, unless in the exceptional instances when these are different Río Claro. However, it is requisite to describe the comuna and its homonym main settlement separately for purposes like demography Cauquenes#Demography (the comuna usually encompasses rural entities) or geography.

In my opinion, it is not necessary to include the region -or the province- besides the name of the settlement in order to name articles about settlements in Chile. The name of the region and province are usually found in the opening paragraph of a wikipedia article (or should be, at least). See: Quillota and San Fernando, Chile as examples.

I would concur with the proposal that, "in the rare case where there is more than one settlement with the same name, that article could be differentiated from the other by adding the name of the Province to the name of the article ie ([[City, Province, Chile]]").

Thank you for your extensive explanation of the term "comuna", however, even after spending various years in Chile I have been unable to find a clear official definition of the term. If you can provide a link to some site or other source where this is defined, I would personally be very interested.

In my experience I find that Municipality (municipio, or municipalidad in Spanish) is not always interchangeable with the term "comuna". Sometimes, from my observation, it is used as a term to define administrative areas for the SII or national tax authority, and may include all, or only part of a specific municipality. I'm not aware of any instances where more than one municipality is included. I'm inclined to think that it may be one of those flexible designations similiar to those you refer to in your discussion about towns, and cities. User:Jaxhere

Finally I've got a clear understanding of comuna/municipalidad as it relates to Chile. The information which had been included in several articles about Chile and above is incorrect according to the Chilean constitution which states, in summary:

Provinces are divided into comunas, which are administered by municipalities. A municipality may, according to article 118 administer a group of comunas.

In essence, the terms comuna and municipalidad cannot be used interchangeably, however, in practice they often are.

I've corrected this in a couple of articles where I've seen this misused, but I suspect that it may pop up in various places and I hope anyone who reads this will keep that distinction in mind inorder to correct these. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regions: Names vs numbers

The Chilean case is a peculiar one. Regions were numbered at the time of their creation for administrative (bureaucreatic) purposes, only, but many people use just the number, nowadays, as a shortcut for the longer name. However, for wikipedia purposes, I should think that the name of the region should take preeminence, since toponyms carry a historical and cultural meaning (with even some affective connotations – just think of a Texan being referred as "someone who lives in the 19th state"!) which cannot be arbitrarily displaced by an ordinal. Ideally, both: name and number should be used in the descriptive paragraphs of the article Copiapó. --User:Eguirald^Talk22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Update to Regions

With the creation of two new regions a number of articles are needing updating to reflect the fact that there are now two new Regions (now numbering 15), their names, the new Provinces (I think the total is now 53) that have been created and also the possiblity that there may also be some new or renamed comunas, too (this I'm not entirely certain about).

As you come across the older information in various articles, also keep in mind the correct subdivision of provinces into comunas NOT municipalities (see the section about comunas, above). --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The process is not complete. The law that create new regions will take effect in about six months. See es:Región de Los Ríos. Jespinos 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention confirmed

I have removed the "proposed" heading from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Chile due to Jaxhere continuing to move a few articles per day with links to this page in the edit summaries ad receiving no opposition. Welcome to the countries with a consistent naming convention for your cities, towns, ciudades, pueblos, aldeas and caseríos. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention modification

I've proposed this additional guideline because many English users are not accustomed to use accents when they are writing. It would be helpful for them if article names of Chilean places were redirected from an "English spelling" to the correct spelling in Spanish. As one administrator commented to me "re-directs are cheap", so we can use them to help users in their searches, but maintain the integrity of names by using the correct "official" spelling in the article names themselves. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding the requirements for redirects from common search terms is a minor change that won't get you into endless arguments – just do it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. (I just hope I won't be chased by a lynch mob for this) --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

re list of comunas

This article already exists at municipalities of Chile. Sorry. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Municipalities and comunas are not the same, even though they are so similiar that most people confuse them. Both lists will serve a purpose, but perhaps they need to me expanded. For example, I could see the list of municipalities specifying the comuna(s) which it is responsible for administrating and, possibly the settlements which are run by the muni. An example I know of is that the Municipality of Villarrica, has the city of Villarrica, the town of Lican Ray, the village of Ñancul, and possibly several hamlets. These are all part of the comuna of Villarrica, but it is a mistake to say that the commune is the same. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be totally anal (for lack of a better word) to have two pages with the same list. We can have the list at Municipalities of Chile, while stressing the difference between comuna and municipalidad in the article, which I have already sort of done, but could be improved. The fact of the matter is that the terms comuna and municipalidad can both be translated in English as "municipality", we have to cope with that. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please avoid supporting your opinion with little more than near-profanity, it's not necessary and reflects badly on you.

The difference between the comuna (which translates to English as commune) was not clear in the article Municipalities of Chile when you removed List of comunas in Chile and redirected it there. I was the one who clarified the distinction which, frankly, is misunderstood quite widely in what I've observed in Chile, but it is available for anyone to see in the Constitution of Chile and documents from the National Stastics Institute (if you understand Spanish)(be certain, however, that you refer to the latest version -- the original has changed in regards to this topic). While it is an inconvenience to have two similar lists from the point of view of making and maintaining them, in the electronic world of Wikipedia, it doesn't do any harm and may actually help outsiders (of Chile) in understanding some of the idiosycrancies of the country, especially if there are links between the pertinent parts of the theme to other realted articles, lists, and categories. As I explained in my direct answer to your talk page, we could probably do readers a great service by expanding on the explanations and relationships between individual communes, municipalities and cities, towns or villages which are inter-related but which carry similiar or slightly different names.

In the end, if you don't like the other list, just ignore it. We're not going to increase your cost of using Wikipedia because of this extra inclusion. JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who's interested I've provided a sample of they way the additional information to Chile's Municipalities might be presented on the page and have also placed an explanation at Talk:Municipalities of Chile JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I voice my opposition to the Chilean city naming convention

I disagree wholeheartedly with the Settlement, Chile policy for all Chilean cities. This should only be used when there are similarly named articles. As far as I know this would be equal to original research, as nobody refers to Chilean cities as Settlement, Chile; except Santiago, Chile; which comes from the capital's original name in Spanish: Santiago de Chile. Please revert the policy's status to "proposed". By the way, it's pretty easy to create policies and not get any oposition when nobody's paying attention. I had no idea this page existed until I supposedly "violated" this policy. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It was proposed for over two weeks with attempts to contact affected editors by several different means including direct user talk pages where identified, moving a few articles a day with edit summaries pointing to the proposal to catch people with articles on their watchlists, notices on this page and on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and its talk page. Admittedly the period was over Christmas and New Year, but I notice you edited Wikipedia nearly every day over that period and since, and have only just decided to voice an opinion. It appears to be almost 2 weeks since the last of the articles were moved to fit the convention. What more do you think Jaxhere could or should have done? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to a change in the convention but I would want to hear some reasonable and logical arguments to support such a change ... not as the objector has put on my talk page that the policy is "absurd" and nothing more.

Regardless of what approach we adopt, it is an aid to the orderly presentation of Wikipedia to have some standard way of doing certain things, just as we agree that the letter "A" comes before the letter "B" in the alphabet, or that people's family name (in Western usage), follow the given name.

What is absurd is what I discovered when I undertook to move all non-conforming names into line with the standard after it was adopted. I found (examples):

• Laraquete – just a place name
• Colonia Dignidad – an existing community where the name has changed to Villa Baviera
• San Miguel (municipality)
• Providencia (municipality, Chile)
• Maule (Chile)
• Valdivia (city)
• City, Chile appeared to be the most frequently used to start with.

These are single examples of each type of variation, most were repeated and there may have been other subtle variations. In some cases there were disambiguation pages with names in other countries or other meanings which would not have been necessary if the standard had been applied in naming the article.

I think it is also important to underscore that the "XXX, Chile" scheme seemed to predominate and was chosen for that reason, together with the fact that the comma convention is the favored one in the guidelines as a whole.

As Scott pointed out at some point, redirects are cheap, and if we're concerned about making it easy for searchers to find a topic we can use them to include multiple variations of spelling, variations of puncuation and symbols, etc, if they are helpful (and which I have attempted to do whenever I've become aware of them.)

In case it is a concern in writing an article and making it look cumbersum by always including ", Chile" together with a place name, there are ways to use just the name alone -- even in a link to improve appearance. Eg. [[Santiago, Chile|]] will produce Santiago.

It is my hope that maybe the Chilean modle, rather than following the disorganized example shown in the heated arguments which rage about names in other countries, might serve as an example to eventually become adopted for universal use. It may be subject to some modifications before it ever becomes wide spread, but I'd hope that we can provide a bit of commonsense leadership to the rest of the world instead of copying their bickering and infighting. JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely support this argument, the suffix ", Chile" is just needed for disambiguation purposes and should not be the defacto naming standard for all places in our country. Otherwise it could even be claimed to be some kind of discrimination.

By the way I'm going to take care of the "Cerro Castillo" issue, adding the two missing places (the Cerro Castillo in Diadema Peninsula, by Skyring Sound and, the Cerro Castillo village by Torres del Paine) Kilroytech 14:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome Kilroytech. Could you please explain what you mean by "...some kind of discrimination"? This naming convention was widely notified to interested parties when it was proposed. If there appears to be a move by multiple authors to consider changing it, please raise it both here and at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). The main point is to have a consistent naming convention so that arguments about the names of individual pages can be avoided, focusing on the content instead. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought once as Cieloestrellado but when I started to understand how wikilinks, dissambiguation, categories and other stuff worked it undestood that Standarization was more desirable than justice i the sence that settlements articles of other more well known countries dont have the name of the country added after the name. Finally I also think that the discussion about naming convention in Chile should allways be open, and it would be a good idea to organize a voting about it (maybe we need the "Wiki-Chile" comunity to grow a bit for that). Dentren | ^Talk 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Maps of communities

I've recently noticed that many communities have maps showing their location within a region such as in Teno. This particular type of map is showing the location of the comuna, which is an administrative area that contains the city, town or other settlement which may have the same name. In the interests of accuracy, please indicate in the caption of these maps that it is the comuna which is being located as opposed to simply putting in the place name. For example instead of:

Map of Teno in the Maule Region of Chile

it would be better to use:

Map showing the location of Teno comuna within the Maule Region.

Notice the re-wording of the caption to make it more clear that the image is showing the Region with the highlighted part being the comuna in question.

If you notice the former version in any caption in other communities, please update it.--JAXHERE | ^Talk 15:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on updating all the comuna pages and have been including this distinction in the captions. - Ruodyssey (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles needing translation into English

Articles being proposed for translation must be accurate, well-sourced, and free of copyright issues. Unreferenced articles aren't considered good candidates for translation. Jespinos 18:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well at least they could be considered a starting point (stub). Kilroytech 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange Mixture in Fueguians and Yaghan articles

Both Yagán/Fuegians and Yaghan/Yaghan language refer to the same etnic group Yaghans, but the later refers to it's languange only, I think this articles must be either merged or renamed to Yaghan and Yaghan Language respectively and, the corresponding redirect from Yaghan changed to Fuegians instead of the language, comments appreciated. Kilroytech 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on it is confusing. Actually i think the term fuegians introduced by the HMS Beagle crew is to old fashoned and sould be avoided. Other reasons to not use this term are:

• 1) It is an exonym

• 2) Both Yagans and Selknam lived in Tierra del Fuego, then it is confusing that only one of these groups is called fuegians. Dentren | ^Talk 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

So, what do we do about it?

I moved the discussion to Talk:Fuegians, and i proposes there to move Fuegians article to Yaghan and move Yaghan(that is actually about the language of the Yaghans) to Yaghan language. Dentren | ^Talk 16:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Time to start WikiProject Chile?

It would be easier to plan, organize and expand contents about Chile if we had a wikiproject. Agree? Say your opinion here please! Dentren | ^Talk 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think would start right now and begin to recruit editors. Jespinos 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sign me in for Magallanes region!! Kilroytech 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wollastone Archipelago or Wollastone Islands

I created the article Wollaston Islands but im not sure if it would be more correct to write Wollaston Archipelago. Dentren | ^Talk 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

According to several Chilean Government, institutions, newspaper and tourism sites, they are referred to as "Islas Wollaston" or "Las Wollaston", therefore the name you gave to the article is quite correct. See the following links for reference, if you do understand Spanish ;) : [2] [3], [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Kilroytech 17:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

New articles found by bot

To all those who are interested in Chile related new articles, I suggest add User:AlexNewArtBot/ChileSearchResult to their watchlists. More information can be found here. Jespinos 18:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new rule to bot, just to be a bit more precise and explicitly include articles from Magallanes and Chilean Antártica Region, could anyone please that the rule is written correctly? If so, maybe we could add similar rules for the other 14 regions, don't you think so? Kilroytech 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Before following adding rules, I think would understand and evaluate the results obtained by the system with the current ones. Rules too restrictive couldn’t be useful for our purpose. Jespinos 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Settlement naming conventions' Change Proposal

As seen in the discussions above there is a disagreement over the (little discussed) settlement naming conventions guideline. Some people think all Chilean settlement pages should use the ", Chile" suffix. Others, —including I— disagree, saying it is unnecessary. Can we do away with this guideline until the matter is further discussed? Here's my proposal for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Chile (similar to Mexico's):

1. Settlement articles go under [[Settlement]] when possible. Example: Pucón, Punta Arenas, Iquique, etc.
2. If disambiguation is needed, [[Settlement, Chile]] is used (the "comma convention," as in Santiago, Chile, or Arica, Chile).
3. In case there is more than one Chilean settlement with the same name, that article could be differentiated from the other by adding the name of the Region or Province after a comma, i.e. [[Settlement, Region]] or [[Settlement, Province]].
4. Article names should reflect the most common spelling used in English; nonetheless accents will always be preserved.

—☆ CieloEstrellado 07:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Cielo for proposing an alternative instead of silently moving a bunch of articles and making it impossible for non-admin users to move them back as happened last month. As WikiProject Chile is now active, you should contact the members there and seek their opinion too.

I have altered the heading of this section to reflect that this is a proposal for a change to the established convention – there was consensus of all identifiable interested parties at the time. I fear this may become like the American settlement naming convention where a few people pop up and claim it should be changed because they disagree with it.

My own opinion is that the default naming scheme for all settlement articles should be qualified by a comma and a larger administrative area (with a well-defined standard of which level). In the case of Chile, I suggested the region name, but at the time the current convention was being worked out, I conceded to ", Chile" instead. The reason I prefer this is that it means that neither editors nor educated readers need to guess what the correct name for an article about a particular settlement is. Redirects or diambiguation pages should be provided for other name forms that might be searched for, but a link to the correct article name will always find the intended article, and does not need to be further altered later when another entity (settlement, event, whatever) arises with the same name. This is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). It also means that all links to the correct article title mean to point there. Any links to the redirect or disambig page can be easily identified and corrected if they should actually point to some other entity. Ideally, this standard should be adopted for naming places in the old world too, as they are often the cause of duplicated place names.

The problem with Cielo's proposal is that for an editor to name a new article, tehy must check up to four other names to determine what is the correct name for their new article, and also check all the existing links to that name to find out if they should all mean the proposed new article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And why is that problematic? You only have to do it once. It's not as if you create 100 articles per day. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important to discuss naming conventions. Even if the actually de facto used naming convention is not bad and it is very easy to use it is still not 100% correct, as I have argued before, but it makes it very easy to search, create or move articles. Personally I'm divided between the two positions and since wikipedia have redirecs I would like instead of voting between two naming conventions that divides me to start a discussion about naming conventions in Geographical features. Dentren | ^Talk 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott, I think all of my arguments against your proposal can be found here. Can you please point to me where this Chile "consensus" was discussed or established? I can't find it. The only thing I found was this, which is a conversation between you and JaxHere, in which you two decided that because nobody supposedly opposed to your ideas, that you should go to make this an established guideline, all the while I was reverting every article move by JaxHere and voicing my opposition. And that's pretty unbelieveable. This "guideline" is no consensus at all. I suggest we go back to what we had before, which is what I'm proposing. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please be aware that big cities are not within a single comuna, that's the case of Gran Santiago (comunas: Providencia, Renca, Pudahuel, etc.), Gran Valparaíso (Valparaíso, Viña del Mar, etc) & Concepcion (Concepción & Talcahuano), which include more than one comuna in a single city. Kilroytech 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To Cielo: Can you please discuss first, and not launch into bad-faith moves? The discussion was widely advertised, and if nobody else wanted to join in, that's not our fault. I slowed Jaxhere down, encouraged wide advertising, and gradual moves over a period of over two weeks. Your first reversions were three weeks later, with no discussion. You have done it again yesterday, with obvious edits to the redirects to make it difficult to move the pages back. There is no good reason for you to make edits like this other than to be disruptive. Please stop. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)--Scott Davis ^Talk 06:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't make page moves without consensus. Thanks, Jespinos 16:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Jespinos: I agree, which is why I have not reverted any of Cielo's page moves this time, as I am hoping to discover whether the documented convention is the consensus or whether his version has support of the Chilean article editing commmunity. Note that there are presently a number of double redirects, and that several of the list articles that had been updated to follow the convention have also recently been altered to match Cielo's version of "how the world should be". --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I reverted all of Jax's page moves. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral reversions are not consensus. I consider legitimate that you request a change to the convention, but your reversions are neither legitimate nor fair. Revert only if a new consensus is reached, this is the rule you did break. Jespinos 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention about geographical features

I would like also like to propose if possible to the naming convention the geographical features. Mountains in Chile are currently using different names see for example:

• Villarrica (volcano)
• Cerro Castillo
• Licancabur
• Mount Tarn
• Volcán Osorno
• Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)
• Lascar Volcano

When settling naming conventions it is also necessary to consider the lakes and mountains that are shared with Bolivia and Argentina since they possibly have their own naming conventions.

Do anybody have proposals about naming conventions in geographical features? Dentren | ^Talk 12:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

We would follow the guidelines given here and in the respective WikiProjects. In the case of landforms shared by Chile and other countries, we would consult with all of the involved parties before doing any type of modification. The following is my opinion:

• Licancabur -> Licancabur
• Volcán Osorno -> Osorno (volcano)
• Lascar Volcano -> Lascar (volcano)
• Cerro Castillo -> Cerro Castillo (mountain)

Jespinos 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Those pages are irrelevant, because no consensus was reached. There is currently no worldwide consensus on the naming of landforms. That doesn't stop us from creating one for Chile though. I'm not sure if to propose something, as every Wiki seems to use the name in the original language (i.e. Laguna Verde). However, what I do not like are parentheses. We should use either Volcán Osorno or Mount Osorno, but not Osorno (volcano). Only in very special cases I would support using parentheses. ☆ CieloEstrellado 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3 proposals

I see 3 possible conventions about naming mountains and volcanoes (it could possibly be aplied to other geographic features).

• The form Osorno (volcano) could be good above other names because it seems more neutral. when using the parentesis it also makes the article easier to clasify and to find in categories. This form also uncludes the possibility of using the sole name as in the case of Licancabur.
• Another possibility is to use the spanish full name taking Intituto geografico militar's names as the official names. This seems easy but may have have the long term consecuence if appliyng to all geographic features that inglish users may not recognise what kind of feature it is by reading the name Quebrada Camarones, Estero Estancilla?. This variant solve many naming convention problems with Argentina that has many articles named this way. In the case of Volcán Osorno it is not recomendable because it includes an accent.
• It is also possible to use Instituto geofrafico militars names but to change the first part to English so that readers know what kind of feature is it. (Munte Hudson/Mount hudson and Volcán Osorno/Osorno Volcano) Of course a good translator whould have to get the exact word for Cerro, Pico and Monte. The bad side of this is that it sometimes gives origin to odd names such as Del Toro Lake if applied massively to all geographic features. Anyway, this seems to me the best alternative and i see no problem in aplying it to mountains- yet. Dentren | ^Talk 01:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Settlement article naming poll

There seems to be at least two theories for how to name articles about cities/towns/... in Chile at the moment. The existing naming convention was documented in December and most non-conforming articles were moved and lists updated in January to follow it. Ciello has proposed an alternative above and simultaneously moved many articles to match this in the last week or so.

I don't find the discussion here clear on which convention should be followed moving forward, or a different one, but the current state is a mess, and needs to be agreed soon. This poll is to help to understand each other's views and to gauge support. Where possible, please give a short explanation, not just "support" or "oppose". --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Existing documented guideline

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Chile:

Give preference to naming articles about settlements as [[City, Chile]] to help telegraph to readers that the article is:

• about a settlement and,
• in the country of Chile.

In the rare case where there is more than one settlement with the same name, that article could be differentiated from the other by adding the name of the Province to the name of the article (ie [[City, Province, Chile]].

Article names should reflect the correct Chilean spelling, however, it may be advisable to include a redirect page using the common English spelling of a name to aid users in searching. For example in writing about the city of Pucón, the article would be named Pucón, Chile and have a redirect page of Pucon, Chile or even just Pucon (without the accents) which are not used in English.

1. Support the convention documented and established in January with no opposition at the time. It is simple and will not require articles to be moved in future as other unrelated concepts are found with conflicting names. Complies with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
   • False; I certainly opposed it at the time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
   • Oppose. This is a terrible convention and is contrary to fundamental Wikipedia naming philosophies. The name of an article should be the most common name used to refer to the subject of the article when possible. Adding on extraneous contextual information in the article title when there is no disambiguation issue to resolve is misleading and needs to be strongly opposed. --Serge 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Support because it is clear, uniform and unambiguous. It will prevent the need for future edits when other articles appear which would use the same name as the settlement. Many existing articles, if they are renamed to follow the proposed change, will have to be either renamed again in the future, or will require a disambiguation page, which is all extra work that can be prevented now by using the current standard.JAXHERE | ^Talk 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Support – I regret that the knowledge of the rest of the world in the English language sphere is less than many of us would like. While it may be obvious to people with area-specific knowledge which specific location is most widely mentioned, to prevent uncertainty among the rest of the larger populace, being as specific as possible is probably indicated. John Carter 00:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Support – when in doubt, I always prefer the simpler solution. This is an international source, so we should try to be as clear as possible from the very beginning, and in this case the beginning is in the name. Cielo's proposal assumes that readers that look for a place's name should know where it is located and I disagree with that approach. Mel Romero 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
   • Readers should know where the place is located by reading the article not the title. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
     • And what happens when the Title of the article gets added to a Category? Some of the categories that these articles might be added to include names of places in various countries. If the title says "City, Country", the reader of that Category listing doesn't have to guess where it is. JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
5. Support – As JAXHERE said it is better to prevent future discussions and name changes, a lot of Chile's placenames are copied from Spain, so at some point somebody will make articles about La serena, Valdivia, and Valparaiso in Extremadura, Spain. Another reason of my vote is that articles need to be standarized (in my opinion). I do also prefer to add commas to the articles intead of parentesis. Whoever that wins this vote, the doors should be open for the losers to collect more supporters and start a new vote (with some time between each voting). Dentren | ^Talk 00:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
6. Support (Copied from comments section below) In light of recent events, I support reverting to the consensus versions of the articles (convention documented and established in January), and make moves only if a new consensus is reached. Note that it is not my endorsement to the current convention. Jespinos 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Cielo's proposal

1. Settlement articles go under [[Settlement]] when possible. Example: Pucón, Punta Arenas, Iquique, etc.
2. If disambiguation is needed, [[Settlement, Chile]] is used (the "comma convention," as in Santiago, Chile, or Arica, Chile).
3. In case there is more than one Chilean settlement with the same name, that article could be differentiated from the other by adding the name of the Region or Province after a comma, i.e. [[Settlement, Region]] or [[Settlement, Province]].
4. Article names should reflect the most common spelling used in English; nonetheless accents will always be preserved.

1. Support. I like that one more than the other one. Seems more coherent. - Darwinek 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. It's a flexible convention. It doesn't make decisions for the rest of the user base. Let Wikipedia be free. ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Support This is more in line with the usual Wikipedia-wide naming convention of disambiguating only when necessary. --Polaron | Talk 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
   • Polaron: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#General rules states: Articles about cities and towns in some countries should be "pre-disambiguated", by having the article named as if there is a name conflict, even if one is not known at the time of writing the article.
   • The existing convention (which you oppose by supporting this one) goes one step further. It aims at preventing conflicts with OTHER countries, (particlularly Spanish speaking ones) where settlements may have the same name. (eg. Castro)Choosing a name which is not likely to conflict with any other prevents extra work and possible conflicts when other articles are written. JAXHERE | ^Talk 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
     • This reasoning would support a general convention for Spanish-speaking countries, like that in practice for the United States. This may be entirely reasonable (it depends on practice, and how often, like the North American Springfield, the same name occurs in every Hispanic country); but it should be proposed in general, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
       • In the larger context, this concept should be applied universally to the entire world. There are conflicts in names such as Concepcion, San Jose, San Juan and Victoria which even spill over into countries which speak English and other languages (this is obvious if you click on these links). Rather than look at this as a excentric, nationalistic move, I'd suggest that it could be viewed as "pilot program" which might be extended to universal use once any bugs are worked out. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
4. Support: Any proposal supported by "telegraph to readers that the city is Chile" will be abused for nationalist purposes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
   • Pmanderson: perhaps the phrase should be changed to "telegraph to readers in what country the city is located", which was my original intention. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
     • So you'd want something like Boston, United States and Manchester, United Kingdom? --Polaron | Talk 16:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
       • That is what I'm proposing. In the specific instance of Boston the article would likely have to be named Boston, Massachusetts, United States because of the duplications in the same country (see Boston (disambiguation)). Manchester too, might have to resolve to a longer title because of the multiple names which existManchester (disambiguation). Some people will certainly express indignation that some place like "New York" cannot stand on its own, but this is an ethnocentric objection. In the interests of clear writing, it is an error to assume that "everyone knows" something. Better to state a fact than to presume that it is common knowlege.
       • My only interest is to promote a practice which will enhance the precision and accuracy of Wikipedia. If there are better ways to do this I'd be eager to hear them, but most of the objections do not have anything to do with the idea of enhancing communications. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. Automatically predisambiguating with , Country is totally non-standard. Cities with unique names should be at the unique name. All references to Chilean cities should be referenced according to context. E.g., "Punta Arenas, Chile is a ..." --Serge 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
   • Serge: Please review the reply to entry #3 (above) in which it is a recommended practice to pre-desambiguate so as to avoid possible problems. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Other ideas, comments and discussion

Please hold long discussions here rather than embedded above.

• To expand on the reasons to continue with the current standard and reject the proposed reversion to chaos, it should be noted that linking to any article about a settlement in Chile will be extremly simple if the current [[Santiago, Chile]] is universal. In the proposed case it is possible that anyone who wants to link to a certain article might have to do a search to find out the actual name and it's modifiers in order to insert a link that works. This, also, is extra work. Using the current standard asks the article creator to enter in seven extra keystrokes which might save hundreds of keystrokes and possibly hours of work which might result if a later conflict in naming results because another place outside Chile has the same name as one in Chile (eg "Victoria") or if someone writes an article about a place which also requires an article about a non-place. (Example: there is both a town and a phenomena called "El Roto Chileno"). Also, it seems to me the bulk of the sentiment for a change is from Chileans but Wikipedia is not written for Chileans, it is for English readers. We need to do the most we can to help them understand Chile, not to present information in a disorganized helter-skelter manner which, it seems is more likely with the proposed revision.JAXHERE | ^Talk 18:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please let settlement names be what they are. There is no reason to add disambiguating text to an article's title when the unaltered title is available. There's just no justifiable reason to clutter an article's title like that. Your proposition actually requires every article to be modified to add pipes to link to every Chilean settlement in Wikipedia, which would take several days of work and would add unnecessary bites to the project. Please do not compromise an article's name just because you have an absolutist view of the world. Let Pucón, Punta Arenas and every other Chilean city be as they are, in their beautiful uncluttered way. There's no reason to disambiguate what never needed to be disambiguated. Let Chilean settlements be! ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • CieloEstrellado, your argument only makes sense in the Spanish version of Wiki. I believe we're even stretching Wiki policy somewhat by encourging the use of accents (which English doesn't use.)
    • Wiki Policy Wikipedia:List of policies#Content and Style states Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers worldwide would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
    • A strict interpretation of this would have us name the article on Punta Arenas "Sandy Point", Estación Central as "Central Station" and CieloEstellado as "Starry Sky" . Except for the massive changes that you tend to make, most, if not all, of the existing article have already been adapted to the existing convention.
      • Yes, sadly I haven't had the time to revert every move you made. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Your approach is asking users to guess at the future need for disambiguation, the existing convention eliminates that need and lets the user concentrate their time and effort on writing a good and informative article.
    • As I noted elsewhere, we're asking users for just seven additional keystrokes to prevent possible problems. You've wasted far more than that in unwarranted moves of already standardized names than in all the articles about places that you've created in your time here.
      • The problem with your proposal is that your adapting Wikipedia to the editor and not to the reader. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• To improve and expand the articles is, in my opinion, infinitely more important than spending time in a discussion about maintaining or changing Chile Settlement naming convention. Note that many of the opinions expressed here are much more extensive than a lot of Chilean settlement related articles, which are only stubs with one or two lines of information. I think is more logical to concentrate our efforts on improving those articles. Jespinos 21:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's out of the question. And once we resolve this, I propose creating a Chilean settlement improvement drive. What do you think? ☆ CieloEstrellado 07:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent observation, Jespinos. JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• In light of recent events, I support reverting to the consensus versions of the articles (convention documented and established in January), and make moves only if a new consensus is reached. Note that it is not my endorsement to the current convention. Jespinos 01:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm prepared to help clean up if required, once. I'm not going to help put back Cielo's moves, only to find a week later that they need to be moved again, especially if it's back to where they are now. Undoing those moves is quite time-consuming, as each one warns that the target is a page with a history, and it has to be checked that the history is only the edited "#rEDIRECT", and not a real duplicate article. Are there really only three people who edit articles about towns in Chile? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In general, there are very few people editing Chile-related articles and smaller still the number of editors of articles about towns in Chile. Jespinos 18:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Cielo's proposal item 3 provides a justification for using the Chile place name as the article name without any disambiguation even if there are other cities with the same name. A less confrontational statement would be that if multiple places have the same simple name create a dab page and disambiguate them all. Vegaswikian 08:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for English users

"Wikipedia is for English users"? Oh really? I thought only en.wikipedia and simple.wikipedia were for English users. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is for English speakers; this page can only discuss the English WP, of which it is part. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

English users have different expectations and experiences with publications than Chilean users, despite how well they function in English. As a long time bibliophile, I've noted that most Chilean written and published non-fiction works are not organized in the same way as an English non-fiction work (Tables of Content and index entries vary considerably).

Differences also exist in things such as

• the Yellow Pages: Chile uses "Rental of Cars" instead of "Car Rental" as a section heading or "Articles for Cleaning" rather than "Cleaning Products",
• public libraries: apart from being scarce, they are not self-service in Chile and probably not one user in 1,000 would be able to find a book unassisted,
• road signs: lists the closest town at the bottom versus the top, whereas the English tendency is to list the closest in the order it is read – top to bottom.
• government services
• Addresses appear with the number following the street name,
• abbreviations are formed using differente principles.

I'm not stating these to be critical but rather to illustrate that "Chilean rules" are confusing or not make sense to a native English user of Wikipedia. One of the clearest examples I've seen recently illustrating this is the Chilean custom of listing Regions from North to South in geographical order. An English user who is ignorant of this custom might be frustrated in trying to locate information about cities from a list ordered by geography. (An alphabetic list, possibly supplemented by a geographic list would prove more productive.)

Most of us are so accustomed to these conventions that we don't even pay attention to them until we are faced with some kind of a crisis or have them pointed out to us. My point is that a naming convention which is created that does not take into account the expectations and experiences of the typical English user we may build obstacles to the reader's good understanding and benefit from reading a Wikipedia article.

If you're a Hispanic who uses English as a second language, by all means express your specific concerns about issues that you believe need to be dealt with, but I suggest that you'd be more helpful to leave the final determination on how to best achieve that to those who have a native or near-native understanding of English and how to it is effectively used. JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Gee, the major English-language encyclopedias must be going crazy, then!: Britannica, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia. While I agree that we should follow English conventions here whenever possible, the convention that you speak of simply does not exist in the English language. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The traditional encyclopedias you refer to do not have accept edits by any user who wishes to contribute. This one fact distinguishes Wikipedia from all the rest, and creates a need for guidance which these other publication don't need. They probably have specific policies which their employees must either accept or leave. JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The paper encyclopaedias also have significantly less articles, meaning that the likelihood of a name conflict is significantly reduced, and there is no technical reason why each article must have a distinct title in those paper volumes, as there is here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Other Commentaries

Before beginning, request that excuses my language, is basic only. It seems guessed right the discussion to me, I believe that the terms of Conventions of names were due to apply that, I create, will be equal everywhere: “it uses the terms but well-known”, thus, to single salary 1 Talcahuano the best thing is titular it thus. If there are many cities that can be confused it can be the best thing to indicate the country. Not if sera better Santiago de Chile, Santiago of Chile, or Santiago, Chile… but in Wikipedia in Spanish we dealed with not using commas in the names, so that they are seen but natural. Greeting. MILO 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

¿Puedes escribirlo en español? Gracias. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Congatulations MILO, for your ability in various languages, even if it is elementary, you need not be ashamed for this -- you know more than many people. Your contributions, even if they are in basic English will be welcomed, but you should expect that corrections will be made ... don't take it as a personal attack. Some of the conventions in the Spanish Wiki might not be appropriate in the English version simply because English users have different habits and ways of expressing thing which you've probably already noticed. This doesn't mean that one is necessarily better than the other, but when working in the English version we must adapt to the English way of doing things otherwise we will be diminishing the value of what is published here. For your information, part of the purpose of encouraging the use of a City name plus the country is to make is simple for ALL users and one does not have to try to decide, in advance, if there might be a conflict or not with the name of a city in some other country. I'd be willing to bet that if this idea were applied by all countries, we would eliminate almost all the the name conflicts which occur in the English Wikipedia. --JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Could some body restore (maybe with a bot) all settlement articles that have lost the ,Chile part? As I understand this is the current naming convention. I have been categorizing chiles towns and cities a a long time now and I see that towns and cities from USA and other parts have an comma followed by the state this gives the user extra information when searching in the categories, but not all Chilean settlements have this ,Chile. Who can know if Loncoche is in Mongolia or Chile? Dentren | ^Talk 01:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Dekimasuよ! 07:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reversion of undiscussed naming convention for Chilean settlements. Pending a concensus convention at Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board, revert back to established convention. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#Chile. — ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Melinka, Chile → Melinka
  • Olivar, Chile → Olivar
  • Puerto Aisén, Chile → Puerto Aisén
  • Punta Arenas, Chile → Punta Arenas
  • Renaico, Chile → Renaico
  • Río Claro, Chile → Río Claro
  • San Fabián, Chile → San Fabián
  • San José de la Mariquina, Chile → San José de la Mariquina
  • Tongoy, Chile → Tongoy
  • Til-Til → Tiltil — Proper name. — ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Contesting for similar reasons as stated by User:Gene Nygaard below. "Proper name" is an insufficient reason for the move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment – Most of these were also tagged for speedy page moves, but some of them have complicated edit histories die to cut and paste moves. Moreover, how are they uncontroversial if per above there isn't any accepted consensus on names. There has in fact been a lot of discussion about theses names. Wouldn't that rather suggest simply to leave all where they are until that changes? For these reasons I've removed most of the db-move tags, but other administrators have been doing moves especially in the first part of the list. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I found and moved Huerta del Maule as it was unfortunately tagged also for speedy deletion and appeared due to a preceding edit just to be a spelling error. The same seems to hold true for the others. Feel free to revert if it turns out to be ill-advised. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator has removed from above list and this log all those entries that he managed to get moved via speedy deletion or other channels and applied nonsensical edits to (as far as I see) all remaining redirects. As I've already warned him personally, I don't want make a call regarding the remaining move(s)[9]--Tikiwont (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • For reader clarity, all these article names should include 'Chile' and other article should either be deleted or redirected to the 'Chile' names. Hmains (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
    • We aren't asking for your opinion here. That should go here. We're asking that the moves be reversed to what was previously established. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The above has all been moved here from Wikipedia:Requested moves, as it was an expired, contested, and incomplete set of requests, and the editor who suggested the moves asked for the discussion to take place in this centralized location. For what it's worth, it seems that the XYZ, Chile pseudo-convention was on the books for 14 months until it was changed (without discussion here) last week. Hope that a consensus can be found in the future. Dekimasuよ! 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

An Invitation from the Philippine Wikipedia Community

Hello folks,

The Philippine Wikipedia Community will be holding its 1st Meet-up in Cebu City (the fourth one in the Philippines) on June 23-24, 2008. This coincides with the first Philippine Open Source Summit also to be held in Cebu, and which the Philippine Wikipedia Community is a Implementing Partner in. We invite you to join us in this event. If you are in the IT or IT-enabled services industry, this would be a great opportunity to network with leaders from the 4th best outsourcing city in the world. This is also a good excuse to visit our beautiful beaches :)

If you're interested in joining the Wikipedia meet-up, please join our discussion. To register for the Open Source Summit, please contact CEDF-IT. If you would like some assistance with local accomodations, you may email User:Bentong Isles.

The Philippine Wikipedia Community
WP:PINOY

Latin American cinema task force

A Latin American cinema task force has been proposed at WP:FILMS, which would include the cinema of Chile. Interested editors are encouraged to sign up – if there is enough interest, then the task force will be created! Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chilean region categories: inconsistent naming

The categories associated with the Magellan/Antarctic are both mutually inconsistent, and don't correspond to the title of the parent article. If you have a view on which of the three ("Magallanes y Antártica Chilena Region", "Magallanes and Antártica Chilena Region" or "Magallanes and Chilean Antártica Region") is correct/preferable, please comment here. (Or indeed, if you would simply like to see some consistent outcome.) Alai (talk) 04:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming convention

Has a naming convention for Chile ever been sorted out? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) simply states A naming convention is under discussion at "Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board". There is nothing on this page that sets out an agreed formula, though there a several references to a formula being agreed, and referring to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). This is just going round in circles. Either a naming convention exists, and should be documented at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), or it doesn't and the referral to "Wikipedia talk:Chile-related regional notice board" should be deleted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The reference to a non-existent naming convention has now been removed from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Skinsmoke (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

(timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)