- History of Afghanistan
- Geography of Afghanistan
- People of Afghanistan
- Government of Afghanistan
- Economy of Afghanistan
- Communications in Afghanistan
- Transportation in Afghanistan
- Military of Afghanistan
- Foreign relations of Afghanistan
Why not simply:
* Afghanistan history * Afghanistan geography * Afghanistan people * ... * Afghanistan transportation * Afghanistan military * Afghanistan foreign relations
Chuck
===== Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo! http://amuzulo.babil.komputilo.org/ ==== Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias. Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
At 02:02 PM 2/23/02 -0600, Chuck wrote:
- History of Afghanistan
- Geography of Afghanistan
- People of Afghanistan
- Government of Afghanistan
- Economy of Afghanistan
- Communications in Afghanistan
- Transportation in Afghanistan
- Military of Afghanistan
- Foreign relations of Afghanistan
Why not simply:
- Afghanistan history
- Afghanistan geography
- Afghanistan people
- ...
- Afghanistan transportation
- Afghanistan military
- Afghanistan foreign relations
I prefer Koyanisqaatsi's approach to naming. "Afghanistan history" looks odd to me because it should be "Afghan history"; when we get to the F's, I'll want "French geography," not "France geography." This doesn't apply for every possibility: "United States government" is correct, for example.
The other, broader question to consider is whether we want a stack of small pages for history, geography, etc. of each country: "history" probably, geography might well go better as a paragraph or two in the article on "Afghanistan." At least if we're still working with CIA World Factbook data--a good, long, detailed article could be written (by someone more up on the area than I) about the geography of Afghanistan, and how that has affected its history, politics, and culture.
Chuck Smith wrote:
Why not simply:
- Afghanistan history
One argument against that form of name is that it is harder to use as a link from another page. I can easily write:
Charles Darwin was very interested in the [[history of Afghanistan]].
but it doesn't make good English to write:
Charles Darwin was very interested in [[Afghanistan history]]. in [[Egypt history]]. in [[Sweden history]].
Afghanistani (?), Egyptian, and Swedish history would work, though. As would Afghanistan's, Egypt's, and Sweden's history. Then the argument is that "History of Afghanistan" is already in majority.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org