Talk:Aleutian Islands

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for verification[edit]

Keep tidy.svg

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.


I don't see how WT:CFI#Names of specific entities could be met. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but same criteria should be applied to all archipelagoes (the archipelagoes having the word Islands in their name, and currently in Wiktionary, are listed below) and scores of individual islands that I found too cumbersome to seek at the moment. I left out Faroe Islands, because they are an autonomous area, Cayman Islands because the term has attributive use in money-laundring world as well as Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands because they are countries as well. I say, once again that our policy for place-names is not formulated in a useful way. --Hekaheka 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Many of the above are primary divisions of a country (especially if dependencies are considered primary divisions, which I think they should be), so would pass under Atitarev's proposed criteria. The Aleutians, however, are not. (Not that this is directly relevant to RFV, since the proposed criteria have not yet been voted on, let alone enacted.) -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
By Atitarev's proposed criteria we would not have this entry but would have at least Aleutians East Borough, Alaska, aka Aleutians East Borough, East Borough, and, possibly, Aleutians West Census Area, Alaska.
I guess I had a different reading. But in any case, the "primary divisions of a country" criterion has gotten a fair bit of support in the past --- in the sense that people are especially reluctant to delete anything that meets it -- but it would protect only Alaska and Juneau in this part of the world (and maybe Anchorage if we're being generous). -- Visviva 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I had read Atitarev's criteria as including all subdivisions but his words would "[A]llow regional centres - capitals of states, provinces, counties, shires, regions, prefectures, oblasts, etc.) regardless of their size", but apparently not allow the entities they were centres of. This criterion would allow The City of New York and may allow Bronx. Of course, "etc." leaves a lot of room for inclusion, many jurisdiction being the seat (if that is what "centre" means) of their own governments. Alternatively, we might exclude jurisdictions whose seat is not a "capital" and have other criteria to allow places like Anchorage.
(I don't know how this would treat districts such as those for schools, sewage, water supply, fire protection, etc)
  1. Does "primary" allow a given point to be in more than one place? If nations are "primary", then are we allowing secondary "states" and "provinces", and the "centres" of all other administrative units and regions?
  2. By what explicit criteria or policies is Anchorage to be included?
  3. Is it the official name of each allowed place that is the main entry, State of Alaska, the vernacular name Alaska, or both? City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska (apparently actual official name, though I'm not 100% sure about "Alaska")? Should we use US Census names? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I expect we can say useful things about Aleutian (though that entry is not terribly inspiring at present). It seems unlikely that there would be anything useful for a dictionary to say about the phrase Aleutian Islands. But this being RFV, I guess we'll see. -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep this and all other geographical entities which are important enough to have established translations in major languages. I added a few examples. --Hekaheka 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary_talk:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities contains discussion of the issue. Should matters not related to this RfV be there or at a BP discussion? DCDuring TALK 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —RuakhTALK 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)