Talk:Administrative divisions of Latvia

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's "European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out!

numbers

Do the numbers in the table correspond to anything? Are they used for anything commonly observable (as for example in France I believe the département numbers appear on car license plates)? —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

… or postal codes? —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Administrative divisions of Latvia. 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}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 10:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in associated articles

One thing I have noticed in the municipality and parish articles is that 'X parish' and 'X Parish' are both used in the text: there should be some consistency. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from the above comment - many of the English-WP articles on the Parishes state they are in the pre-2009 X District rather than the post 2009 Y Municipality (the article should read 'prior to 2009 in X District, and since then in Y Municipality). Many of the entries could have the 'add information from the equivalent Latvian WP page' tag (but possibly borderline notability for English WP).

I am developing the material on another wiki, so will update here when complete, and will cooperate with anyone else interested in the activity (and related local government topics). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Latvian parishes

I am making use of [1] as I update some of the parish articles - so 'same author and no copyvio.' Jackiespeel (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

What should the redlink 'towns countryside territories' actually be? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's apparently what those administrative divisions were called (as translated to English). --Lasunncty (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds 'clunky' especially as 'towns' appears a couple of words before - would something like the former UK Rural districts be a suitable analogue? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian Avinurme Parish has 'rural municipality' which may be an appropriate term. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order?

So when you click the arrow next to "Municipality in the table, it looks like it arranges them in alphabetical order. However, Ikšķile, Rēzekne, and Salacgrīva seem like they're randomly placed in between the C's and D's in the table. I'm not sure how to fix this, so I thought I should just post it here. TurkeyCookTime (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Lasunncty (talk) 02:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of harmony between EN and LV wikis

After the 2021 reform, I now see another problem with the articles about municipalities. In the Latvian wiki, the question of a municipality (referred to as M below) being retained, but with changed borders, was solved by adding a suffix " (200?–2021)" to the original articles and creating new articles on the new divisions (the articles of M's that became parishes were renamed/moved[?]).

Unfortunately, this damaged some of the links between the EN and LV wikis - some of the English M articles now link to the old articles (e.g. Jēkabpils and Saulkrasti) but some (e.g. those with other M's merged into them, like Mārupe) don't have a Latvian link anymore. Same for some of the legacy M articles. And the ex-M's: some still have links with EN articles, some don't

So now what to do? Should we copy the model of the Latvian wiki, just rename and update the articles, or something else? I personally would prefer the first option although there is always the tiresome issue with Wikidata entries (haven't looked into that at the moment but will try). This should be done about the articles of the new parishes. Ivario (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, nobody cares :( I use in Esperanto version changed names for new units (all novads since 2021 - "distrikto", old novads - "komunumo"), maybe we can use new names for difference in English too. I am weak in English but there should be many synonymes there. Egilus (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have only tried to check the handful of divisions you've mentioned. I see that lv:Mārupes novads (2009—2021) is now a redirect to lv:Mārupes pagasts. I see no problem with linking Mārupe Municipality to lv:Mārupes novads. I would suggest switching the link of Saulkrasti Municipality from lv:Saulkrastu novads (2009—2021) to lv:Saulkrastu novads. Similarly I would switch the link of Jēkabpils Municipality from lv:Jēkabpils novads (2009—2021) to lv:Jēkabpils novads. The Latvian Wikipedia can and should do whatever it feels like doing, but on the English Wikipedia, I do not think it is necessary to create separate articles for every stage of a municipality's territorial evolution. To use an analogy, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that we need separate articles for every period in which the U.S. state of Virginia had different borders, i.e., Virginia (1776–1783), Virginia (1783–1787), Virginia (1787–1791), Virginia (1791–1847), Virginia (1847–1867), Virginia (1867–present). Cobblet (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, these all seem like sound arguments. But what about the ex-municipalities which have become/reverted to parishes? Maybe a section with a small overview of this period and the old infobox would be the best option? Ivario (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're asking what we should do with the English Wikipedia articles on Ādaži Municipality, Carnikava Municipality, etc. I don't think we need separate articles for the current parish as well as the former municipality which only consisted of that one parish. So it is probably best to move these articles to Ādaži Parish, Carnikava Parish, etc., and update the infobox to reflect the place's status as a parish. The History section of the article on the parish (if the section doesn't exist, create it) should note the former existence of a municipality with the same name and borders. Similarly, Alsunga Municipality, Baltinava Municipality, etc. can be merged to Alsunga Parish, Baltinava Parish, etc. Cobblet (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started working on the interlanguage links in Wikidata, but there is a limit on how many edits can be done in a given period of time, so it might take some time to finish. I'll let you know when I'm done. --Lasunncty (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ivario (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally done! --Lasunncty (talk) 08:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet: These aren't stages of administrative units. They are new units, but names of them was created based to previous model, that is, capital town Municipality. For example, Valka District isn't same administrative unit as Valka Municipality. Same thing is with Tukums Municipality (Q369007) and Tukums Municipality (Q97232977). One of them are unit from 2009 until 2021, but second one is four previous units together (now there are also Kandava Municipality, Engure Municipality and Jaunpils Municipality). That isn't new stage of Tukums Municipality. There was new goverment election and another new stuffs.--Treisijs (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, but for other countries that have experienced similar municipal reforms, we typically do not keep separate articles for the former municipalities that share their name with a current municipality. See the examples of Danish municipal mergers in 2006 and Greek municipal mergers in 2011. Cobblet (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lasunncty: I agree, here we are talking about this problem in English Wikipedia, but why interwikis in another languages are moved in Wikidata from one entry to another? Actually, this isn't done. Still there are old maps, old information in infobox (also in articles) about previous units. Must removed back interwikis or updated information in articles!!! --Treisijs (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made my moves based on the title of the page only. My thought is that as each language wiki updates to reflect the new municipalities, they can either change the existing articles (as EN did) or create new articles (as LV did) and move the old ones in wikidata. --Lasunncty (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cobblet and Lasunncty: Still isn't solved this problem. Need update articles (not only in English Wikipedia) or remove back interwikis and create new articles about present day administrative units of Latvia. PS: I'm reminded that present day Municipalities aren't new stage of previous Municipalities. The previous model (capital town Municiplaity) is still in use, but that doesn't mean that is new stage. For example, there is Augšdaugava Municipality and Daugavpils Municipality (one of case, when don't use model capital town Municipality), but there are two articles in English Wikipedia. --Treisijs (talk) 07:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]