Log in

Forum:River Kingdoms designation

From PathfinderWiki
Forums: Grand Lodge > River Kingdoms designation

It looks like we have a fair bit of inconsistency within the River Kingdoms which may be appropriate as that's the nature of Riverfolk ways, but we should probably tidy it up on this wiki.


In essence, the River Kingdoms is classified correctly as a Nation in Avistan. The component sub-kingdoms though could be nations, regions, city states, cities or ruins. The Region, City and Nation infoboxes are used for these sub-kingdoms inconsistently and sometimes one does not appear.
Suggested solution
I think we should use Mivon as the guide here. Even if a River Kingdom is a nation, the {{Region}} template seems most appropriate as it has a line to show that the kingdom is within the River Kingdoms and not entirely independent. It also has the ability to add a reference to the chapter in the Guide to the River Kingdoms. The {{Nation}} navbox can do neither. Where a kingdom is a city state too, or a city with the same name as the kingdom exists, we need the {{City}} template too. One might argue they should be on separate pages, but as an intermediate step, the addition of the City infobox on the kingdom page in a separate sub-article about the city seems a good way forward. Pitax also adopts this method.


Sometimes the {{River Kingdoms nations}} navbox is applied, sometimes not.
Suggested solution
I think it should be on all and we probably need to boost up that navbox.

Categories on Page

Hmm, just inconsistency reigning here to make any general comments.
Suggested solution
I think we should make them consistent and use Mivon as a guide: Nation cats, River Kingdoms cats, City cats all as appropriate.

Category Tree

I can bet this follows suit but have not yet checked. Just a note here that this will need doing too.

Comments? Problems?

Re: Nation infoboxes, for what it's worth, I've been adding the source/page feature as optional attributes to infoboxes as I've come across ones that don't already have them. {{Nation}} should have them now. That said, the way you describe using {{Region}} and {{Nation}} makes sense and is consistent with the similar Lands of the Linnorm Kings, so that's fine by me.

Re: {{River Kingdoms nations}}, are you thinking something along the lines of {{Ustalav navbox}}, treating each River Kingdom as an Ustalvic county and covering the RKs' broader geographic features all together?

Re: Categories, I'll defer to you here Fleanetha as I think I have yet to grok exactly how categories are meant to work, especially how many levels up/down the tree should be on the page. I think some guidelines for the RKs (and by extension, Lands of the Linnorm Kings) would be helpful.
I know I don't have the definitive answer, but I keep trying to think about this as a somewhat related real-world analogue. I'm thinking about the United Kingdom and its constituent countries (England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). Wouldn't we call all of them {{Nation}}? If I was creating from scratch, I'd think of the River Kingdoms more as a logical {{Region}} (which I'm *not* suggesting we actually do).

Tricky, isn't it? Thanks both for your comments.


Oznogon's useful updating of the templates nullifies some of the points I initially made about referencing the sources in the infobox.

Regardless of how we might define region or nation, on this wiki a region is a subset of a nation - that's how the templates are set up and how they have been applied before any of us turned up here, so we shouldn't change that, and I appreciate that's not what is being suggested. We had a similar debate about Iobaria.

The Linnorm Kingdoms are set up with each kingdom being a region even though they are pretty independent similar to the River Kingdoms. In the RK, the Outlaw Council in Daggermark provides a weak unifying force to the overall region, er, nation, er, country. So to be utterly consistent with every other ISWG country we would apply {{Region}} to each kingdom. However, I have added nation-oriented categories to the pages and the category tree now as well. But, if they are nations and have nation categories, why not use {{Nation}}? All we lose now is the line (| nation =) that states which country a region is in.

Hmm, the UK example is interesting - I looked at the code on wikipedia and indeed the 4 home nations take the country infobox template, as does the UK itself. I also checked Germany, USA, Australia and Canada to see if their 'states/regions/subdivision' (argh) took the country infobox template but, annoyingly for this survey, each one has a specially adapted template unique to subdivisions of each country, so not helpful. By the way, this is what I assume you meant from your analogy, FoiledAgain, rather than that the UK is a lawless land of warring bandits?

I am minded now to change my mind and make any nation take the {{Nation}} template - after all this debate that's pretty simple isn't it. So Linnorm Kingdoms and River Kingdoms get Nation, while Ustalav counties and Osirian regions get {{Region}}. And we make a decision on a case by case basis for each country that gets such a breakdown in future.

Sorted by adding a 'land' line into {{Nation}}, so we now have no reasons not to use {{Nation}} when the entity under discussion is a nation: we can now show if a nation is actually part of a larger land. {{Region}} should now be used for a subdivision which is not a country but a county, province or region.

I'll now consider the knock on to the category structure.

With this new addition, Korvosa, Magnimar, and Riddleport come to mind as outliers. None is a nation, but each has holdings throughout Varisia. I think using {{Nation}} for any of them is the wrong move, because they're first and foremost cities. It also means that we'd have to define Kaer Maga as a city-state, when it's actually more of a free city. And then there's Urglin. In general, I think we should still keep {{Region}} to cover places like Varisia, even if there are no "nations" within it, only cities. The Hold of Belkzen and Realm of the Mammoth Lords should be treated the same.

I'd agree there Yoda8myhead. None has ever been defined as an independent nation, though now you mention it, one actually does have a monarch suggesting kingdom status. I haven't fully thought it through yet, but as well as the Linnorm Kingdoms and the River Kingdoms, other candidates for this treatment maybe Thassilon, Issia & Rostland historically but not today, and some more independent parts of the Shackles?

This discussion was started and is now copied from Talk:River Kingdoms: --Fleanetha (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Are the River Kingdoms a {{Nation}} or {{Region}}? It has no ruler or organized government, and its component nations and city-states are independent sovereign states. Even when compared to the Shackles and its Pirate Council, the Outlaw Council holds no executive power over its members; there's no equivalent to the Hurricane King, and independent places within the River Kingdoms like Hymbria and Orthult (and I believe Fort Inevitable as well) outright disregard it. -Oznogon (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's probably the most "regional" of all the regions in the Inner Sea, even moreso than Varisia or the Shackles.—Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 20:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a 'nation' only because it has a section in the ISWG and has been treated as a unified area from the off. Within Golarion, they speak of the RK as an entity that is distinct from its surrounding neighbours. This has come up before: see Talk:Iobaria. Varisia is pretty loosely defined as a nation: it is more a collection of remote city states with each having a hinterland and gaps between them. Let's find an exception too: Steaming Sea was promoted to having its own section in ISWG, but that has not been given a {{Nation}} or corresponding category (quite rightly) - it has {{Region}} applied. So as I note at Iobaria: "Region is used predominantly as a subsection of a country (like a county) rather than a larger area containing many countries (like a subcontinent). Our nomenclature may be confusing there and inconsistent." Is it clear yet? Don't forget our discussion at Forum:River Kingdoms designation too from October 2014. Then the addition of 'Land' to the infobox helped a lot I thought. So currently we have Land above Nation above Region. Should we have a {{Land}}? I would be opposed to Region being both above and below Nation as that way madness lies. To adopt Region as the top level above Nation is not impossible but a lot of work, and frankly confusing, and then we would have to find a new term for a subsection of a Nation. Did anyone mention Vudra? Let's move this discussion to the existing Forum article as we'll never find it in a few weeks' time here? --Fleanetha (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is {{Region}} is poorly named if it's solely meant to describe an area that's a political subdivision of a {{Nation}}.

If we insist on infoboxing such regions and want to further restrict {{Region}} to describe politically subordinate areas of a {{Nation}}, we should consider renaming {{Region}} to something less confusing (like {{Province}}), bot-replace it across the wiki, and create a new infobox at {{Region}} that suits its more general name and can encompass such vague, non-political regions like the above examples. Maybe even add {{Continent}} as an infobox and make a formal hierarchy.

In other words:

Another, less invasive, less descriptive option: Varisia, the Shackles, the River Kingdoms, and Iobaria don't need infoboxes. They're colloquial designations for non-political geographic regions.

Well we agree on 'region' being a poor choice and if you can bot us out of the difficulty of that then great - it would be a difficult manual task. I cannot think of anything better than 'province' - a good choice as no one would consider that word to mean something that is bigger than a nation or country. I also like {{Continent}} and the overall hierarchy you propose. EXCEPT I am fed up with 'region': let's find a new, utterly unambiguous term for the below continent / above nation designation otherwise we'll confuse everyone. Region is a poor choice as it can be used perfectly correctly for both areas within a country as well as for huge geographical tracts, so moving it from one use to the other still makes it a poor choice in my mind. Thesauruses out and the word needs to make sense for RK, Shackles, Varisia, Steaming Sea, Thassilon, Iobaria, Vudra, etc. How about: Area, Land (no - too much like country), Place (no), Tract (no), Zone (no-too climatey)? Geographical area, Geographical region, Geographical zone (no-too climatey)? Others?

This is a big change so we should probably seek wider approval - is this actually needing a policy change? PathfinderWiki:Naming conventions doesn't cover it so maybe not. Region was chosen though at some point by someone for a reason.

Plus what else would need changing - navboxes, infoboxes (included swapping out new term for 'Land'), help pages, category trees - anything else?

There's nothing inherently wrong with the term "region" for areas that define and delimit local regional identity. It's what Wikipedia uses. Regions are a subcategory of Category:Continents, and categories for countries are subcategories of their region category (which makes sense, because countries are simply a specialized region).

Likewise, "country subdivision" categories for subordinate regions like states and provinces are under their country categories on Wikipedia. (For example, see Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions for the equivalent unit to Chelish archduchies, Ustalavic counties, etc.) It's pretty straightforward. They're all types of regions, even cities, but you don't put them directly into Category:Regions or use the {{Region}} infobox because they have more specific categories and infobox formats of their own.

Broadly, the cat tree could look like:

For instance, Mivon's category map could look like:

Category:Regions -> Category:Regions by continent -> Category:Avistan/Regions -> Category:River Kingdoms -> Category:River Kingdoms/Nations -> Category:Mivon <- Category:River Kingdoms/Nations <- Category:Nations by region <- Category:Nations

For regions like the Shackles or Varisia that don't have nations, create relevant regional subdivisions:

Category:Regions -> Category:Regions by continent -> Category:Garund/Regions -> Category:Shackles -> Category:Shackles/Islands -> Category:Bag Island <- Category:Shackles/Islands <- Category:Regional subdivisions <- Category:Regions