Talk:United Nations geoscheme for Asia

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Asia Low‑importance

	Asia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia 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.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:PTST and customary names

The rationale behind my edit [1]:

The statement that (People's Republic of)"China includes Taiwan" is contested. Note that Wikipedia depends on secondary and teritary sources See WP:PSTS. Wikipedia articles should not represent the UN point of view, but rather the reliable published points of views on United Nations geoscheme for Asia
Per country naming, it is customary to use customary names instead of official names in Wikipedia articles and also Unicode CLDR.
This is English Wikipedia, and thus I use alphabetic order to reorder the list of countries/regions based on their Unicode CLDR customary names.--_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 01:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The UN geoscheme is defined by UN M.49 [2], and, as you can see from this document, it only has one China. That doesn't necessarily mean that the PRC is viewed as including Taiwan or that the ROC is viewed as including mainland China, but it's clear that the two regions form one single entity in the geoscheme. Other authors have made classifications that classify Taiwan and the PRC as different entities, but, even if these classifications are based on the geoscheme, they are not the geoscheme itself — they are the creations of these authors. Spacepotato (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iran as a part of Western Asia

We should update the map

Afghanistan as apart of Central Asia

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Nations geoscheme for Asia. 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, 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) 13:55, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is in Western, not Southern Asia

Iran is in Western Asia. It cannot be in both in its entirety, maybe in parts. Or is this about the UN, not about geography per se? Arminden (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the UN geoscheme and its classifications, not actual geography. DRMcCreedy (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmccreedy: hi. I arrived here because Southern Asia is linked to this article via DAB page. It's either or, you can't have it both ways. Now you have for instance plants linked to Southern Asia, which don't fit the Iranian Plateau, and probably many more such issues. Fix first, remove "dubious" tag after. Arminden (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You overestimate my powers to change the geoscheme created and maintained by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). The "dubious" tag is inappropriate because the source and topic of this article clearly places Iran in Southern Asia for the purposes of their geoscheme. The original edit amounts to "I disagree with the decision that the UNSD has made for their geoscheme". That's more of an issue to raise directly with the UNSD instead of Wikipedia. DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You like jokes - or rhetorics. I can appreciate both, but we're here trying to improve Wiki. I've fixed the DAB page meanwhile. Done. What matters is helping the user, all the rest is game & ego. Which is fine, as well. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back to my initial statement: This article is about the UN geoscheme and its classifications, not actual geography. The concern raised is that the geoscheme should be defined differently, not that this article describes the UN geoscheme incorrectly. A user wanting to learn about the UN geoscheme will not be well served by reading inaccurate information describing it. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't get my point. This here was correct, granted, but others misunderstood it and wrongly linked "Southern Asia" to this article. It's called functional illiteracy - on their behalf. I was just lazy, as it's not my field of interest and wanted to shake up those to whom it is and run back to my own stuff. But no such thing, I've fixed it by now (here), so it's all good. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West Asia vs Western Asia?

It's West Asia a synonym of Western Asia?

There's a big note in this claiming they are different, but it's not referenced?

Irtapil (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "West Asia" on the UN site geoscheme info. I'm guessing that note isn't relevant to the UN geoscheme itself but someone really wanted to make their own distinction. I wouldn't oppose the unreferenced note being deleted. DRMcCreedy (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We should go further and delete the other notes similar to this in the article as they’re editorializing on the arbitrary choices of the UN geoscheme—not a bad activity in itself, but not here on Wikipedia — D. Wo. 22:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwo: I'd be careful with that. I've only landed here because not everybody understands that this is NOT geography, but just a UN tool, and smb editing an article about the civilisations or archaeology of Iran had placed there a wikilink to the Southern Asia section here. Very wrong. You must think ahead & act, i.e. make confusions as hard as possible. They'll still happen, but less, and you'll be thanked for that. So MORE warning signs on this page of the "this is NOT geography" kind, certainly not less! Arminden (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP DISTINCTION CLEAR!

The 2 last topics here-above, the last article edits, and, and, and... ALL are proving beyond doubt that users and editors alike cannot make the distinction between the UN scheme, created just as an internal UN tool, and its subregions; and the geographic subregions, physical and/or political, known by the same or similar names. They do not concide. Therefore, we MUST keep a warning inside the lead, within its 1st paragraph (on phones the picture comes between the 1st and the 2nd, making the 2nd quasi invisible for the hurried visitor). Pls don't remove it!!!

Because many are landing here by mistake, we MUST, for user-friendliness' sake, offer the links to the geographic (sub)regions easily available. The "See also" is an excellent spot, if accompanied by the linked cross-ref in the lead. Again, pls don't remove it!!!

Placing the geographic (sub)regions as "main" tags at the top of each section is 100% misleading: content is different, name often too (and when identical it's even MORE misleading).

Only fools refuse to learn from an endlessly self-repeating mistake. Arminden (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And promptly, Dwo reversed the new lead with the edit summary claiming that the source doesn't support the distinction...

The lead does not need to contain any refs. It is meant to summarise what's essential - and avoiding the ever-present confusion is here the most essential. Maybe half the discussions on this page, the misleading "main" tags I removed yesterday from each article section, they all prove beyond doubt that this is THE problem haunting this article: lots and lots of users & editors are misled into believing that this are geographic subregions, declared & supported by the authority of the UN; THEY ARE NOT!

One can be a fearful bureaucrat and just slightly rearrange the words of the UN document to avoid copyright issues, or truly syntesise its core meaning and point out what is ESSENTIAL and USEFUL to the user, i.e. "making the Wiki encyclopedia better", the most important principle of Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened (re- because attempts were already made 18 years ago!) central discussion here: Talk:Subregion#MISLEADING ARTICLE!!! Rework top to bottom!. It includes UN page for FAQ, a perfect RS, showing why this schema is not valid for physical geography (changes made once state borders changed with subregion USSR created and abandoned after 1991, overlapping subregions like North America and Northern America). Tool exclusively created for statistical UN purposes! Nothing more, nothing less. NOT relevant to physical geography; NOT universally usable in political geography either, as too specific. Arminden (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwo, hi. Look, I see the point you want to make. But take a step back and look at the very real issue with this article: time after time, people are misled. After so many attempts at clarifying the confusion, both of the last 2 discussions opened on this talk-page are, yet again, the result of this specific misunderstanding, and they were brought up by editors (!), not common users, and mind how seldom one takes the time to signal errors - this is certainly just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of users come here by mistake, take the wrong info, and don't ever notice.

That all schemes are context-dependant is only partially true. Everything outside maths is somewhat arbitrary, but the UN geoscheme is fundamentally different in many substantial ways from the current mainstream systems of separation into geographical regions, and all you need to do is compare it with the dedicated enWiki articles. Those are thoroughly worked through and represent the mainstream concept. Relativisation beyond reasonableness is a disservice to logical thinking and, even worse here, to the user, so let's not overdo.

Secondly, this being Wiki, we are dealing with Wikilinks and redirects. Keeping the confusion possible and even likely is sabotaging users and editors in a major way.

I see no way how you can honestly not accept the point, proven by so many confusion-driven edits and postings, that the UN Statistics Division has a very peculiar geoscheme, strongly diverging from the common scheme (if that's how you want to call it) of physical geography, and of political geography as well. Just compare those lists and you'll be amazed. I have. So why are you so dead-set against it? Why not even allow a negative sentence, like "may NOT etc." as opposed to "may etc."? Your use of irony when finding a typo adds to my impression that you're taking it as some kind of fight with me. I don't know you, it doesn't matter to me what else you contribute to Wiki - or here for that matter. I only care for the utility of the article, and concretely: not to be misled, again, and like so many others, by a careless definition. That you can't possibly have anything against. Please, let's cooperate on this in a reasonable fashion. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal is to prevent confusion, let’s use a hatnote. Something like this:

It would be the very first thing in the article, it would follow Wikipedia conventions and tone, and it would direct readers to what is probably the best location on Wikipedia at the moment for information about other geographical groupings in Asia. Unfortunately, there’s no List of geoschemes article to point to (at least, not yet). — D. Wo. 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks. Dwo, from experience: hatnotes aren't enough. They look like the small writing in contracts or package leaflets. The proof is in the pudding: there were "main" hattags, the wrong ones, at every section. Unless you hit ppl with a cold fish over the head, they don't notice. Reality check. Editors are supposed to study the text, not just skim it - and look at the last two issues brought up here-above! They don't concern the UNSD geoscheme at all.

I'm all for elegant form and playing chess when chess is the game, but the goal takes precedence, and the goal is: communicate. correct. information. Communicate - so warn users, full on. Correct - so UN STATISTICS written all over it. Information - point to mainstream physical geography and maybe political geography schemes, because that is what 90% of those landing here think they've found and that's what they're looking for.

Who the f***, excuse my French, do you believe cares about the internal, extremely peculiar geo-tool of the UN STATISTICS DIVISION, really? This mushrooming family of spin-offs is the best proof that neither thr editors who write them, nor the users reading them, understand what they are. It's one huge self-feeding confusion.

Students in school don't learn geography like this, journalists don't write for us based on this, there's frankly no real-life domain where this scheme ever comes into play. And Wiki sets a trap, a ruse, puts out a masquerade. Once we noticed this, it's our duty to push the other way as hard as we can. Arminden (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got carried away. Yes, a hatnote would help. Yes, the lead is already quite clear; I would still much prefer to add the cross-ref to the "See also" list of regions according to mainstream academic schemes. I can't see the harm of it, and would fully appreciate it as a user: "fine, you've warned me this isn't it, but where can I quickly get what I do want?" We're living in clickbait times, an here why not? Cheers, Arminden (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwo: hi. Why fighting the obvious, or windmills? It's only ligical that well-intendrd and to a large degree useful attempts like this one will keep on popping up. Reality check. It's not about being theoretically right, or convincing me: IT DOESN'T WORK, users are people, not AI entities, and this exaggerated Wiki presence of an obscure geoscheme that places Iran in Southern Asia (??!!) is a curse for almost everybody. Wiki editors have this obsession with "safe" sources (RS!), so when the mighty UN signs a paper, everybody copies & multiplies it, like brainless robots, 'cause it's easy and safe. That's all. This fringe UN statistical geoscheme takes centre stage on Wiki, and shouldn't be more than a tiny footnote in a UN article. Honestly. Arminden (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said, “This fringe UN statistical geoscheme takes centre stage on Wiki, and shouldn't be more than a tiny footnote in a UN article.” If that’s true, nominate to have the article deleted (and, of course, the other UN-geoscheme articles too) and, when you do so, articulate your reasons for why. Until then, as long as the articles exist, they are going to reflect the facts of what the M49 Standard of the UNSD is and not your POV, my POV or any other editor’s POV of what we think it should be or how we think it’s wrong—no weasel words, no footnotes, no asterisks. — D. Wo. 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More needed about the scheme as such

The article, judging by its title, is not about the list, but about the scheme. The definition = lead must state precisely this.

More about the scheme as such would help further understand its purpose and illustrate the obviously still elusive distinction vs geographic subregions. Arminden (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]