8 June 2024   News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Hi. In your article on the Yeniseysk Governorate, you claim that Tuva, as the Uryankhay Krai, was merged into the same administrative framework as Yeniseysk. What sources did you base this on if you don't my asking? All the ones I've seen assert that it was declared an autonomous protectorate of the Russian empire on 17 April 1914.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I remember that, for whatever reason, I wrote that article rather hastily, but I can verify that most of the information came from the source cited in the "References" section. That, however, would only be the post-1920 information. Where the pre-1920 stuff came from, I wouldn't remember if you put a gun to my head! Quite embarrassing, actually. I kinda sorta remember that it was something solid (i.e., not a random bit off the internets), but for the life of me I can't recall what it was, nor can I recall why in the world I didn't list that source along with the other.

Anyhoo, if you have sources attesting to the contrary of what that particular sentence states, then please by all means rephrase the sentence and cite your source. If I happen to stumble upon the material I used, I'll let you know. And sorry about the confusion!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 20, 2011; 13:33 (UTC)

I'm not gonna change it right now, but I don’t actually need any evidence to disprove a positive claim – you need evidence to prove it.

Reason I’m asking is because I'm currently involved in a collaborative online map project, and we found contradictory information on Tuva's status from 1914 to 1921. If it was declared an autonomous protectorate inside of the boundaries of the Russian empire (along the lines of Bukhara and Khiva presumably), it would seem rather strange that the Moscow authorities incorporated it into an adjacent province/gubernia, which suggests outright annexation.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I'm obviously as stumped about where the claim came from as you are, you can replace it with another positive claim and add evidence to back it up :)

As for Tuva's status, I may have some books about Tuva's history (with the emphasis on its administrative status, since this is the kind of books I collect) in storage, but it may take me a while to get there and look. If I find anything interesting that may be of help to you, I'll let you know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 17:30 (UTC)

Ok, thanks in advance.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to check out what I have in storage, but I've dug up something that confirms the inclusion of Uryankhay Krai into Yeniseysk Governorate. This article in "Tuva Asia" says that the krai was included as a part of the governorate, and it is sourced to a quite authoritative source by Dubrovsky. I don't know if this helps you any, but it should be a good starting point. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 12, 2011; 18:33 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here (I was looking at Ezhiki's page for the answer to a different question)... Otto Manchen-Helfen writes in his Journey to Tuva that Tuva was "incorporated into Yenisei Gubyerniya" one month after the outbreak of WW1. In the note, he writes that "The annexation, which had been decided upon on April 17, 1914 (four months before the outbreak of World War I), was announced to the Tuvan population in the autumn. Shortly thereafter, the city of Byelotsarsk was founded by the Russian government." Check out pages 195-196 of Journey to Tuva (Czarist Annexation of Tuva, 1911-1917). In Appendix A (pg. 234) there's the history from the People's Revolutionary Party's Fourth Congress: "In 1913 the Russian officials finally forced the acceptance of Russian czarist "protection" upon the Tuvan rulers of the day. The government of Nicholas II dispatched a Commissar Extraordinary, and Urianghai was gobbled up by Yenisei Gubyerniya.". In the Tuvan Manual: "In July 1914, an official communicated the Czar's willingness to grant the Tuvans protection to the Ambyn-Noyan Gombodorji. The latter accepted the provision that "no relations of any kind (were to be maintained) with foreign states, including Mongolia" and Tuva came under the administration of the Yenisei Guberniya. The Russian action was to be kept secret." Hope that helps. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Stacey, this is very helpful and no intrusion at all. I should have thought to ask you earlier!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2011; 13:21 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, both of you! Judging from this information the Russian government seems to have assumed the continued existence of a Tuvan nation under formal Russian protection in spite of the annexation, so I'd say the joinder with Yeniseysk was more for administrative simplicity than complete submersion into the system of direct rule. Annexation was presumably interpreted to rather mean detachment from China and inclusion into the metropolitan area of Russia.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you move Sveinald (Varangian warlord) back to Sveneld. The latter title is more nice and simple, and the latter name is much more popular both in google hits and google book hits, even when searching English sources only, [1] vs [2]. GreyHood ^Talk 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was obviously incorrectly moved without starting a move request. GreyHood ^Talk 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the "incorrectly" part, but the move is certainly unexplained. I've moved it back.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 16:23 (UTC)

Thanks for the back move. I mean that it was incorrect technically (brackets addition to unambiguous title) and procedurally; by the way what's with the talk page? Talk:Sveneld (Varangian warlord) is attached to Sveneld and not to Talk:Sveneld. GreyHood ^Talk 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My screw-up. I'm taking care of it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 16:32 (UTC)

Hello, This is an article which started as a very poor translation of an unidentified Russian text. It has been upgraded quite a lot since then but I found some problems with the Russian names as well as the dreadful translation. Forms of Russian names often have many Latin alphabet transliterations depending which European language has been used for the purpose. Many libraries use the ALA-LC romanization for Russian but I have not seen much sign of that in Wikipedia. Deciding how to change the names that were wrong was difficult.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Felix! We don't normally use ALA-LC romanization in Wikipedia because its use is mainly limited to the library catalogs and not to the actual publications. As for the spellings of people's names, we should stick to the spellings used in the sources being cited (I mean the sources in English, of course). If no such sources are available, we use this system (note that it is currently under discussion, but the discussion concerns only a few minor details). Let me know if you need anything further. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 15:27 (UTC)

Thank you, The history of that article Mariya Svistunova is very peculiar: when I began to edit it it was of disputed notability which I thought was a mistake. The first version includes sources like this:

Notes

↑ Peter S. Svistunov (1752-1808) ↑ Memoranda Alymova ↑ House Svistunov ↑ Russian portraits of 18-19 centuries. Т.3.Vyp.3. № 79. ↑ Russian portraits of 18-19 centuries. Т.3.Vyp.3.№ 78. ↑ Christin F. & La Princesse Tourkestanow. Lettres ecrites de Petersbourg et de Moscou: 1817-1819. Kristen Ferdinand and Princess Turkestanova [Ilinichna Barbara (1775-1819). Letters written from St. Petersburg and Moscow: 1817-1819. Supplement to the Russian archive. Moscou: Imprimerie de l'Universite Imperiale (M. Katkow) [Typography Moscow Imperial University], 1883 / / Russian Archive, 1882. ↑ А. J. Michael-Danilevsky. Notes of 1814-1815 years. — SPb, 1832.

↑ D. Fikelmon. Diary 1829-1837. The whole Pushkin's Petersburg, 2009 .- p.55 So I suppose it is a machine translation from a Cyrillic encyclopedia article but there is nothing to show the title or edition of the encyclopedia. (The advantage of the ALA-LC romanization is that it works well in both directions but it would be unsuitable for Wikipedia to adopt it as a standard.) I think these sources ought to be retained somehow. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to any of these, unfortunately. From what I see, all these are originally in Russian (except, of course, the one in French), which means that for spelling guidance [[this page is your best bet (at least until you find anything relevant in English).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2011; 13:35 (UTC)

• Коллега, не могли бы вы ознакомиться с этими двумя небольшими статьями, посвященными картинам русских художников Александра Семёнова и Николая Тимкова: Malaya Sadovaya street (painting) и Russian Winter. Hoarfrost (painting) и высказать здесь и здесь своё мнение по поводу целесообразности их удаления? Как я вижу, среди инициаторов удаления созданных 3 дня назад статей нет занимающихся русским искусством или хотя бы элементарно знающих язык. Статьи являются переводом статей, существующих в русском разделе Википедии: Малая Садовая (картина А. М. Семёнова) и Русская зима. Иней (картина Н. Тимкова) С Уважением, Leningradartist (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Я прокомментировал, но в будущем рекомендую вам не охотиться на участников поодиночке, а обращать внимание на подобные ситуации на WT:RUSSIA.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 15:12 (UTC)

Спасибо за совет. Сделал. Пока не хватает опыта в этих вопросах. Leningradartist (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain what the highlighting in pale colours is (as on My contributions to the Russian WP, Polish WP & Hungarian WP). As I do not know enough of those three languages to find an account of what those colours means either not knowing or consulting an editor who will know. I know there is a huge difference between us in time zones (here is GMT +1) so am quite patient.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the article's sighted version status. You wouldn't see these colors on the en_wiki because this feature is not implemented here. A pale yellow highlight means that the article needs to be sighted, while pale blue means that the article had already been sighted by someone. The exact implementation details may vary from one Wikipedia to another, but in general your edits will always be marked as unsighted in Wikipedias where you don't have an autoreviewer status, and you can do nothing to change that unless you have a reviewer status. The bottom line—you can safely ignore that highlighting :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2011; 13:27 (UTC)

Blagoveschensky, Russia VS Blagoveshchensky Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo; I've fixed it. Thanks for catching it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 1, 2011; 17:49 (UTC)

Maybe you can bring Zyuzino, Russia to SIA standard. The is also one locality in Belarus, so even under your system it would be ", Russia" at least after article creation for that one. But the SIAs don't ask for any article creation to exist, so maybe even under your system, knowledge of the Belarus entity is sufficient, independent of an article or entry in WP. Please no reply on my talk. This was just to inform you. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reformatted that one. As for your question, if I know for sure that a place by the same name exists outside Russia (whether we have an article on it or not), I always take that into consideration when naming the set on the Russian localities. Doing otherwise would just add to future maintenance for no good reason. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 13:55 (UTC)

Still no reply on my talk page needed:

• Loyno, Russia - the current rural needs to go to ", Kirov Oblast". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Omolon, Russia - details on Magadan would be nice. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed Loyno. As for Omolon, there is currently no inhabited locality in Magadan Oblast by this name. There used to be a state farm, but it was never classified as an inhabited locality. I'll double-check the historical records though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 19:31 (UTC)

The sovkhoz was in Magadan? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (although they may have been one by the same name in ChAO as well). Also, don't forget that Chukotka Autonomous Okrug was once subordinated to Magadan Oblast, so geonames might have taken the data about the same place from different sources and treated them as distinct places. The coordinates, of course, aren't the same, but then geonames isn't exactly a reliable source (I've already found an error in their coordinates data for Loyno).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 20:06 (UTC)

• Argun, Russia - move needed for Argun, Chechnya Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three SIAs needed, you probably have better data:

• Yuruzan, Russia - Yuryuzan (town) i (correct, although the other one is a tiny village of dubious notability)
• Alatyr, Russia - Alatyr (town) i (correct, although the other one is a tiny village of dubious notability)
• Furmanov, Russia - Furmanov (town) i+o (the one in Russia is a tiny village; no Wikipedia article for the entity outside of Russia)

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Kataysk http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Kataysk&country=RU - maybe SIA Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Dmitriyev (town) http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Dmitriyev&country=RU - maybe SIA Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:21 (UTC)

I'm writing a script which would automatically insert article importance next to the article name on a task force page. I don't know how to write a bot, but an offline script should also work; one just needs to save the task force page on disk and then cut-paste the result back to WP :). You can see a test run here. As you can see, there are still some problems, but I hope I can fix them "soon". Any suggestions on what the script should do? Is format (just adding importance in parentheses at the end of the line) ok? Nanobear (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some color-coding would be useful (perhaps it is enough to color-code the importance in parentheses). Also, it would be nice if the script could read the tags on page tops, such as clean-up, neutrality tags etc. and insert the relevant information next to importance. GreyHood ^Talk 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, color-coding is a great idea. Any suggestions for the color scheme? Perhaps Top, High, Mid, Low. The tags could be mentioned in smaller text, not to make the page too distracting, like with Tags: npov, references, deadlinks. Nanobear (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but the tags a bit too small. I'd propose this size and style: Tags: npov, references, deadlinks GreyHood ^Talk 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think the word "importance" could be dropped, Top, High, Mid, Low are just enough. GreyHood ^Talk 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think finding and inserting all tags may not be feasible. There's a huge number of them, and one cannot just get all templates on top of the page, because that would also include stuff like infoboxen. If there was a way to get a list cleanup, neutrality, etc. tags directly through the API, it would work. I tried looking but did not find such a feature there. Maybe I could write a predefined list of, say, 10 main tags we want to be listed, like "npov", "unbalanced", "refimprove", "blp", etc. The question is, would it still be a useful feature with this limited list of tags it recognises? Nanobear (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another test run: User:Nanobear/tftest. Does the coloring look good? Perhaps the font should be a bit larger or at least it should be in bold? If you spot any mistakes made by the script, I would be grateful. Nanobear (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think 10 main predefined tags would be enough. Coloring is quite good! Check the line with "Russian Amber Company" - it is a red link, so where from does it take importance? GreyHood ^Talk 22:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to check which tags are present in the article is to look in the hidden categories [3]. The script now recognises these categories. I made another test run with the tags listed: User:Nanobear/tftest. Any comments? Does it look OK, and did I select the right categories? Nanobear (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, was the style you suggested Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup or Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup? (The markup you mentioned was different from rendered text) Nanobear (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last variants looks OK. A bit too many brackets, though. Maybe it is worth coloring those additional brackets as well, not sure. As for the style of tags its OK either way (perhaps grey is even better), the main point was the font size. GreyHood ^Talk 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of some possibilities:

• 1. Article (Top )(Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup)- current style
• 2. Article (Top; Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - two brackets less
• 3. Article (Top; Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - two brackets less; grey color
• 4. Article (Top) (Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - first brackets have same color as their content
• 5. Article (Top) (Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - all brackets have same color as content
• 5b. Article (Low) (Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - all brackets have same color as content

Of these, I think 4 looks the best. I cannot think of a good way to have less brackets. 5 has the disadvantage, that everything is of same color if importance is low, as 5b shows. We can always change the style later. A new run of the script always just overwrites the old output.

The main problem is probably going to be that the script needs to be manually run each time; if we want to keep the task-force page always up-to-date, one needs to run the script after every addition. A more realistic scheme would be to run the script only once in a week. A way to make the updating quicker would be to write a PHP script instead, and add it to a web page. Then, one would simply enter the URL of the task force page to the web form, and would receive the updated page as copyable text, which can be pasted back to WP. For smaller updates, one could enter the name of the article you have added to the task force page, and the script would give its importance and tags. The problem is, I don't have a web server with PHP support. Nanobear (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, #4 is the best variant. As for the running issues, let's wait for Ezhiki's advice or perhaps ask some bot-runners, such as User:Alex Bakharev. GreyHood ^Talk 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have to admit that most of the technical stuff related to this is way over my head (I don't know PHP and never learned just how it is exactly the bots operate), so I'm afraid I'm not of much help in that area. We need a willing bot owner to run this, because running this manually every week is not a practical solution, I know that much :)

As for the variants, I also like #4 best.

All in all, great job! I think automating this task was a great idea, and the implementation is pretty good, too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 14:50 (UTC)

Indeed, doing it manually is not a solution at all. GreyHood ^Talk 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started a WP:NCRUS related vote at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. It would simply mean to remove the "Dikson (urban-type settlement)"-rule and would result in Dikson, Russia by applying the general Wikipedia rules. I hope we can at least agree on that one. Especially for "urban-type settlement" I see only five or so articles that would fall under the clause anyway. For "rural locality" I couldn't find a number.

I agree with your move http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shamkhal,_Russia&diff=437870425&oldid=437373607 - I made a mistake here, applying the subdivision name, but that is not supported by the rules. Sorry. Again, no need to reply on my talk. This was just to inform you. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And once someone writes an article about the port called Dikson, "Dikson, Russia" will be referring to... what? And the article about the urban-type settlement will be moved to... where?

As for Shamkhal, no problem.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 14:39 (UTC)

How would you name the articles on the settlement and on the port if there would be Dikson, Belarus? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using parenthetical disambiguators, of course (in addition to country specifier when necessary). This applies to Shamkhal, by the way, since there is a railway station called Shamkhal (although we don't yet have an article about it).

My point is that no guideline will ever cover every possibility, and the more possibilities you try to document, the longer and less usable are the instructions. Look at the length of your proposed NCRUS—just how, may I ask, does it "reduce instruction creep" (which was the whole point of your original proposal)? Instead of three simple rules covering most cases you now have kilobytes of instructions which still don't cover all cases!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 16:22 (UTC)

It is you who invented a massive set of rules. But you have them in your head and didn't write them all down. I only documented what I found you have put into several pages. And I found it was inconsistent. You have to compare all your rules with all rules that would result from my proposals, i.e. written down + your head VS written down as proposed by me. But lets stay at the topic, how would you call the Dikson articles? Please write down the links, as I cannot see what you mean. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm actually the person who works on these articles most. When I create an article, it needs to go under some title, and no one else will name it for me. And it makes sense to name new articles the same way as the articles that already exist. At some point, it makes sense to document the general trends of how these articles are titled, hence the three simple rules we have. That's really the only way to do things when no one else cares much about the work being done but generally agrees that the work is good and necessary. You wouldn't expect me to wait five years to start creating articles just because there is no one else around to discuss the "naming rules", would you?

Also, the existing rules aren't just in my head; they are actually implemented and can be observed. Note that no one is expected to follow the rules in every little detail you have so far documented—if the three major clauses don't cover a situation neatly, then one may use whatever works in that particular situation. Hence most of the "inconsistencies" which you've found. Some of them can be fixed, some can't, but it doesn't mean that we should replace the three rules with pages and pages of instructions covering every possible situation! The guidelines are supposed to provide general guidance, not step-by-step instructions on how to handle every possible combination of entities we may ever face. And the three general rules allow for more flexibility than two.

To answer your question about Shamkhal, there are multiple ways to handle the situation. If I were faced with this task today, I'd place the articles at "Shamkhal, Iran", "Shamkhal (urban-type settlement), Russia", and "Shamkhal railway station". However, I'd use this setup not because some rules tell me to do it just this way, but because no existing rule covers this situation neatly and this particular approach works reasonably well. If a better way is found, the three articles can always be re-named, but it doesn't mean that we need to add a separate rule to cover the situation of this type.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 17:07 (UTC)

Even if you are the only editor, you should follow WP rules. And if there is no need for Russia specific rules, you shouldn't invent too much. Shamkhal, Russia and Shamkhal railway station see Category:Railway stations in Russia, would be sufficient. Railway stations mostly don't go under the plain name. The only articles the almost always go without the type are localities. They use comma and that's it. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules to follow in this area; there are only guidelines to help editors make a choice. Again, these are guidelines, not policies. When the guidelines are inadequate (which in this example they are), it's perfectly alright to make an exception or to use whatever makes sense at the moment. As long as readers can find the article, it's all fine. And if it can be found easier under a certain title without having to click through several pages, it's even better. There's no need to re-write the guidelines for that, especially if the re-written version will no longer conform with the real state of the matters!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)

But you are enforcing your self-made "guidelines" on others [4]. As long as readers can find the article, it's all fine. - Why then, you make so much drama? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's easier to find an article about an urban-type settlement when it is labeled as such instead of generic "Russia", especially when the other entity is also in Russia? The title needs to be disambiguated anyway, so what use is there in choosing a less specific disambiguator? Just because a generic guideline tells us so? Do we not have our own heads to think with?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 18:06 (UTC)

But lakes almost ever use the word "lake" in the name. The comma is very much pointing that the article is about a locality. And, there can be other settlements called Khasan, e.g. Khasan, Pakistan. WP is far from being complete. Shield the articles from the need for moving around in the next 10 years, by applying ", Russia" in cases where a disambiguator is needed anyway already. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's "pointing" for you and me, not your average Joe seeking to find info about "something called X in Russia". If Joe is looking for "X Mountain" in Russia, a list such as "X Lake", "X (cake)", "X, Russia" isn't even telling him that we don't have an article about the mountain; it'll just lead him to click through "X, Russia" and be disappointed. A list such as "X Lake", "X (cake)", "X (rural locality)" at least makes it abundantly clear that we have nothing about the mountain. Similarly, if a Jane looking for the Russian village, the first list gives her no clues that the entry she seeks is the last one, while the second list makes the selection immediately obvious. All in all, you are sacrificing readers' convenience just to prevent us from moving an article on the off-chance something else pops up. That's just wrong.

And if another place, outside of Russia, turns up, then of course the articles will need to be moved and the disambig page edited accordingly, but I don't see the current rules interfering with that process at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 18:44 (UTC)

So, how come...

...I didn't get an invitation? Canvassing is a sin, you know...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 18:49 (UTC)

What is else is the above [5] than an invite? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, apologies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 19:30 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You seem to have put a lot of energy into articles on Geography of Russia. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. I should note, however, that I would have done a lot more of said writing if I didn't have to spend oodles of time on revisiting perfectly functional guidelines because someone is itching to improve them just for the heck of it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 19:46 (UTC)

I help you to have less guidelines, so you need less time to spend on revisiting ;-). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is making them less flexible and more confusing, which doesn't really help any. Not mentioning parenthetical disambiguators doesn't magically rid us of all the situations where using them is an acceptable (or only) solution; it just removes the explanation of their use from public view. But anyhoo, thanks for the barnstar all the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 20:10 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the skillful and intelligent comments in defence of your views. GreyHood Talk 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I have to support a different position. As I should say, Ezhiki is my friend, but unfortunately I don't like the parenthesis...

I'm going to be absent from wiki for some time, perhaps a pair of weeks, but maybe more. (That's both good and bad news for you ;) on one hand, I won't be able to support "X, Russia" proposal anymore, and on the other hand you have been very close to convince me to change my vote.. )

Please watch for the task forces and assessment for the period of my vacation.

So, see you later! Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar! It does make me feel better that the problem is not so much with my arguments as it is with people's personal tastes clouding their judgement :)

Seriously, though, no problem. We all have different views on some matters. If the proposal doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. If it does, at least I can feel comfortable knowing that I put up a good fight.

I hope you have a great vacation and will return to editing refreshed and invigorated. It goes without saying that I'll keep an eye on the assessments and will continue with my daily batches.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)

Hi! can u please help expanding this article using ur russian reading skills? (there is quiet big article in russian wikipedia). Have good day! Superzohar Talk 16:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could help with that article as soon as I have some time. I'm quite busy now, so maybe in 1-2 weeks. Nanobear (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you could do that, it'd be great. I'm not big on doing translations, and the topic isn't something I'd feel excited to work on anyway. In a couple of weeks right after the industry of the Kola Peninsula, right? :)))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:43 (UTC)

I notice we now have a few svg like File:Outline Map of Altai Krai.svg but without the inserts. Can you ask our Russian friend to kindly add inserts to the maps so we can remove the double maps in the infoboxes?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't think the guy is around much any more. I asked him about the other thing you wanted a few months back, and I never got a response. His last edit in ru_wiki was in February.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:45 (UTC)

Could you remind me again why we spell his name Sergey Shoygu instead of Sergei Shoigu on Wikipedia. The reason I ask is because I came across this recent article on CNN that spells his name Sergei Shoigu [6]. I previously cited the tuvaonline.ru news site that spells his name with an i. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither spelling is incorrect; it's just different romanization systems. We mostly follow the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, but multiple other systems exist, too. All systems enjoy some use, and even the same organization may not always follow just one consistently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2011; 13:30 (UTC)

Hi Ezhik, can you look at this. Warning has been given, perhaps a block is clearly in order though as well. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll add it to my watch and will block after another incident. Those IP cowards are getting tiresome!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)

Hello! Would you mind revising the article Tarkhankut Lighthouse which I created quite long ago and fixing grammar and vocabulary at least where it's really worrisome? Frankly speaking, I supposed the article to be noticed swiftly by participants of the respective projects but now the readers are either rare or seemingly indifferent to it. Should any doubts occur, the Ukrainian version, also composed by me earlier, was the source. Thanks ahead! --Microcell (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in particular you want me to look at? I could copyedit it a bit, but in general it's OK for a Start-class article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:23 (UTC)

Tarku in India and Nepal. Can you find one Russia, see Ghazi Muhammad. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inhabited localities in Russia called "Tarku". The Ghazi Muhammad article should link to Tarki (which is called "Таргъу" in Kumyk, which is why it is currently spelled "Tarku").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:26 (UTC)

Thanks. Won't interfere with spelling, created Tarku, Dagestan as redirect. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might have something on Rabotnitsa and Zdoroviye.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything specific, but if you have anything in mind for me to find, shoot. My mother used to subscribe to Rabotnitsa in Soviet times, by the way :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:28 (UTC)

Any chance you could find some suitable articles to add a Category:Communist magazines to?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can try. I don't think the English Wikipedia has many articles about Soviet magazines, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:48 (UTC)

Here's one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:51 (UTC)

Renaming proposed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19#Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:29 (UTC)

You must have been angry to have chosen to start a deletion request for populated place? I would appreciate WP has an article on populated place /and/ on inhabited locality. Or the latter mentioned within the former. Can you bring any sources for the term "inhabited locality" into the article space? For the record, I am not happy with "populated place", since some of them are not populated anymore, a problem one does not have with "settlement". Also locality might be a good general term, and at the end, all "populated places" could be moved to "inhabited locality" or populated locality ([7]).

Please can we work on sorting this out, without content deletion? Thanks for the kitten. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't nominate it because I was angry (I thought you knew me better than that), and even though I am frustrated in general, that's not the reason either. The only reason I nominated it is because it was a disgraceful stub about a non-notable concept. If someone expands it to show notability and supplies references (a process that I see is already ongoing), that'll be great, but otherwise there just isn't a reason to keep that little abomination around. I wish I could help with expanding it myself, but you are keeping me rather busy in half a dozen other discussions which I barely keep up with, and I don't want to pile up yet another task on top of that.

Also, I don't have any problem with using the term "populated place" (or any of the other synonyms, except "settlement", which is just too confusing in the context of several countries) to name the upper level categories. The purpose of the upper level categories is to provide means to readers so they could easily compare the same concept across many different countries, so it makes sense for the terminology to be uniform (horizontally). However, once the reader locates the category being sought, there just isn't a need to stick with generic terminology any longer—using more specific terminology in the context of that particular country is a lot more helpful (not to mention encyclopedic). There is even less need to use the generic terminology in the actual articles. If more precise and/or more common terms are used in a particular context, that's what we should be using, too. If multiple terms exist, we should use the one that's more common than the others. That's all I'm trying to convey. I find the notion that the choice of terminology in our articles should be guided by the choice of terminology for our upper-level category names rather revolting, is all. I thought Wikipedians stopped doing that years ago, but apparently not everyone is yet on board.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 13:27 (UTC)

Please, transfer your knowledge of "more precise and/or more common" into the article space. Otherwise it looks just like your private opinion and you will have to repeat it again and again to users. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. There are things one can look up and add as references, and there are things one learns from observation. I've read dozens of books on the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia, and most of them use the term "inhabited localities" when they describe the concept with any specificity, but none would directly say that "'inhabited localities' is the term used to refer to legally defined areas of human settlement in Russia", because it is not the term by the virtue of some mandate, but merely by the virtue of usage in a certain context. The term also fits nicely into the whole urban/rural localities classification terminology, which, to me at least, makes the choice a no-brainer. In other words, I stick with the view that if multiple translations of the same term exist, the one that fits best into the encyclopedic infrastructure should be preferred. You seem to stick with the view that if multiple translations of the same term exist, the one that fits best into the auxiliary (navigational) infrastructure should be preferred. However, since we are building an encyclopedia (where content is supposed to be king), I can't subscribe to that view.

Compare it to the situation around "populated places". It's not hard to find a bunch of generic definitions, but you will not find a source confirming it's the preferred choice when one needs to call areas of human habitation something. We just agree that, in general, it is, based on what the sources out there tend to use. It's not something we can reference, but it's something we can agree on. There never had been a discussion which established that we should be using this term in all contexts, though; the consensus was merely regarding the upper-level categories.

All in all, if you can't or aren't willing to accept my testimony in good faith, just say so. I seem to be the only person interested in the classification of the inhabited localities in Russia anyway—something I have always thought of as being an asset, because I can contribute something unique that others can't—but it seems that others (and, unfortunately, you) prefer to think of this situation as if I were trying to impose my "personal opinions" in an area no one else really has a clue about. If Wikipedians don't want my services in this area, I'll be happy to free up the next seven years of my life for doing something more productive. I most certainly can't be very productive in an environment where the opinions of an editor with a knowledge of some pretty esoteric (yet encyclopedic) matters are routinely dismissed in favor of simplistic (and occasionally plain incorrect) approaches and where that editor is forced to waste all his available time on "improving the guidelines" instead of being able to work on the only thing that really matters—the content. When people (not you) say in my face that their main reason for arguing with me is "to show me my place", when most of the people opposing my views never even contribute to Russia-related articles yet keep following me to each new Russia-related discussion I happen to be (or have been) a part of, when they find my arguments "convincing" but don't support them strictly because they have a strong personal preference of their own, all that is not exactly an incentive to keep contributing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 14:26 (UTC)

You might find contributing more pleasurable if you learned to go with the flow, sometimes. I do this by mostly ignoring my own personal preferences (even in areas where I'm more knowledgeable than most), and by attempting to understand what "everybody else" wants. Mlm42 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a great piece of advice if my goal here were to spend time pleasurably. As it stands, I am here to contribute to an area of knowledge no one else is willing to contribute, which means there is no "flow". It is one thing to disagree with a group of fellow editors who might have different views on a subject but are all knowledgeable about it. It's a different thing entirely to disagree with a group of editors who are arguing with you not for the sake of the readers, not for the sake of the content, but for the sake of maintaining integrity of the guidelines and regulations regardless of whether doing so makes sense in the context or not. Even that wouldn't be so bad if those editors were at least willing to listen to the reasons being presented to them, but they either don't listen at all, or stick to personal preferences of their own, or say something like "I don't understand any of it, but I will oppose because someone else did". It's not really that hard to understand what "everybody else" wants here—they want the problem gone, and dismissing it or bundling it with the ways of doing vaguely similar things is often the easiest way to do so. It takes care of the problem alright, but Wikipedia does not become better as a result. And according to you, my only option is to stop caring about subject-specific problems if I want to continue editing or perhaps to switch to editing less esoteric subjects, those with a "flow". Great. I truly don't know sometimes why I bother contributing at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 17:15 (UTC)

I just mean that it's not worth fighting over every tiny issue - it's a waste of your time. If the rest of Wikipedia is doing something (like using the term "populated place" in category names), why fight it? Just go with it. It doesn't really matter anyway. Being grumpy, ranting about it, and generally showing diva-ish behaviour, isn't really going to make anyone happy, including yourself.

And yes, I think you'd do well to consider subscribing to Wikipedia:Don't-give-a-fuckism. Mlm42 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that these "tiny issues" are a waste of time for pretty much all people involved and lead to nothing constructive no matter what the outcome is. They affect no one but the editors working on the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia (which most of the time, unfortunately, happens to be just me) and the readers who are interested in understanding this topic in any kind of depth (which there aren't that numerous either), yet the people complaining about them and chasing me around belong to neither of those two groups. I have no problem with Wikipedia using artificial or arbitrary constructs to name the upper-level categories which contain artificial or arbitrary collections of things (like most, if not all, of the "populated places in Foo" cats). I am, however, very much against transferring these arbitrary conventions to the article space or to the names of categories which are supposed to be based on articles. That's a fight worth fighting, because the quality of the encyclopedia is at stake.

I wish I could just ignore these things and merrily go about contributing stuff in a haphazard manner, but there is so much material involved that the importance of organizing it all efficiently is paramount, yet the organizational efforts is those folks' primary target. Hell, of course any organizational structure can always be improved! It shouldn't be improved for the sake of improvement, though; the improvements should affect the actual articles or solve actual problems! Yet it never ends. Six years ago an editor wanted, among a bunch of other silly things, to rename most first-level administrative divisions of all non-English-speaking countries to "provinces" regardless of whether that's the term used by the sources or not; three years ago the argument was about how the term "settlement" is the best one, like, ever, and should be used whenever possible (my opposition to that, by the way, played a part in editors finally gathering together and replacing "settlements" with more sensible, although not perfect, "populated places"); now we have a similar group arguing that "populated places" is the way to go, always and regardless of regional peculiarities and preferences. It's almost seems like we have a group of "editors" whose only purpose and joy is in writing the guidelines and ordering others around instead of contributing to articles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 19:47 (UTC)

Should I pressume that you are calling me an Apparatchik (a derogatory term I've never heard of), or were you referring to someone else? And I think it's a bit sad that you believe that "the quality of the encyclopedia is at stake", if we use the term "populated place" instead of "inhabited locality" in a category name. It's not even article content - it's a category name. Sheesh. No wonder you seem so stressed. Sometimes you just have to learn to let it go. Changes like this can be done with bots, and most readers don't even know what categories are.. so it's really not worth worrying about. Mlm42 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not calling you anything, I'm just ranting at no one in particular and you happen to be around (you can run while it's not too late :)). Also, while I did have several specific people in mind when making the apparatchik remark, you aren't one of them. However, if you think the shoe fits... well, that'd be sad, too.

Another sad thing is that you don't seem to realize that to an uninvolved person the problems of someone else always seem easy to fix and nothing of significance is ever at stake. The bigger picture only starts to uncover once you dig deeper (and in this case, a lot deeper). Problem is, most of my opponents not only aren't willing to dig deeper, they aren't willing to dig at all, aren't interested in hearing out the counter-arguments, and generally don't give any sort of fuck about the content affected by the changes. All they are interested in is their opinions, which they aren't even willing to substantiate or to explain how they are better on the content side. Did you notice how I usually deconstruct each and every argument thrown at me? And did you notice how nothing of the sort ever comes back in return? The only things that come back in return are circular reasoning, "others do it differently and there are many more of them" sort of arguments, and "I have no idea what it's about but I'll oppose anyway" remarks (do prove me wrong). Ever tried to explain the importance of anything in such an environment?

Cat names aren't the only thing affected, by the way. Bogdan's ultimate goal is to rename a bunch of articles and to replace much of the terminology (here's the first step; by all means, join), only he isn't willing to do any of the maintenance work himself. Successfully moved categories are one of his main "arguments" for changing articles. Are you still wondering why I am frustrated? He mentions bots, too. Bots, however, aren't magical beings which will fix everything for us; they need to be programmed properly, and the consequences of many of Bogdan's proposed changes wouldn't be easy to fix even with the bots. What gives?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 20:44 (UTC)

I think generally Wikipedia editors have open minds about things; I also think they generally do not want to engage in lengthy debates about things they don't care about.. but they might still weigh in and leave. 1000+ character-long posts may or may not be read by everyone who weighs into a dispute. In terms of convincing people of something, a concise, powerful, single sentence argument is going to be much more effective than a detailed multi-paragraph rant.

For example, after reading much of the discussion, I still don't understand the Talk:Types of inhabited localities in Russia#Move to Types of populated places in Russia dispute.. this is an article about the different kinds of places where people live in Russia. The first sentence of the article has a citation needed tag.. the more pressing questions for me are: why do we have this article? (Would it survive an AfD?) Is the first sentence original research? (If not, what is the source of this information?) Mlm42 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people not reading the discussions in which they participate is not a problem intrinsic to Wikipedia. One could argue that's the whole reason why democracy never works as well as it's supposed to! It is, however, an interesting question why some people find it compelling to contribute to a discussion about a topic they neither care nor know about... is it just to be heard? If so, such !votes should be weighed accordingly.

Regarding the article, yours are the questions I can live with and are very good questions to ask. I'm not sure why the first sentence has a citation needed tag, though. That sentence serves as a lead—a summary of the article written with a higher degree of generality, and as such doesn't really need a citation. Lead citations are usually needed only when the lead statements are controversial or aren't otherwise supported by what the main article says. Do you find that the lead does not summarize the article contents? Does the article give no indication that the classification system used in Russia indeed possesses some peculiarities other countries lack? Of course, one sentence makes a sucky lead in any case, the article itself is far from being complete, and one could argue that any country's classification system is peculiar in its own way. So, if you have a better suggestion about how the lead should be worded, go right ahead.

As for why we have this article, I'm not sure what you mean. Why do we have any articles at all? It's a valid encyclopedic topic, is it not? The classification exists; where else would we talk about it?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 14:08 (UTC)

It looks like you really need one. Hopefully you don't let Wikipedia eat you alive. Mlm42 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be too late for not being eaten alive, but thanks for the gesture anyway. You know there is a problem when alcoholism seems to be a better option than editing Wikipedia :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 13:42 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I must admit, I was rather sad to hear it! What is the policy regarding former districts, obviously there would be the relevant comments in the articles for the districts into which they were absorbed, but is there scope for a "former districts" section in the Chukotka nav box? How would they be referred in the Administrative divisions of chukotka autonomous okrug article? Are they listed separately as former districts, or expunged altogether? Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a policy about the former districts, nor do we have enough articles about them to establish how they are normally dealt with. I'd say do whatever feels right :) When we have more than a few such articles, we could start thinking about how to organize them best.

As for mentioning them elsewhere, the historical information like this indeed belongs in the "administrative divisions of XXX" articles. The one about Chukotka is a barebones liststub, but that's where the information ultimately should go (compare, for example, with how Murmansk Oblast or Adygea are done). The navbox, that I'm not so sure about. It's probably OK to include the historical districts in Chukotka's, but for some other federal subjects the lists of historical districts will contain dozens and dozens names; including them all in addition to current districts would make the navboxes very unwieldy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:34 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since criminals are related to law enforcement and the latter is related to politics we should use the Politics of Russia task force, isn't it? GreyHood ^Talk 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my line of thought, too, but it is not obvious at the first glance and looks quite weird. Perhaps we should have a taskforce for all things legal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 16:31 (UTC)

I thought about renaming "Politics of Russia task force" into something like "Politics and law of Russia task force" or "Politics and law enforcement in Russia task force".. GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. "Law" is probably better than "law enforcement", as it is broader and could include legal stuff that would otherwise have to be put under "science".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:14 (UTC)

Indeed, "Politics and law" is better. If you feel we need the change (personally I'm OK without it, but that's a matter of habit), please rename the relevant pages (though, what about the bot-generated content?). GreyHood ^Talk 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have time for this now, but I'll add it to my to-do list for later (or, if you want to try taking care of this yourself, you are more than welcome to). I'm not sure about the bot-generated content either, but it should be easy enough to figure it out once we start digging. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:45 (UTC)

Do you notice something wrong with the infobox here? Colchicum (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not really... There are a couple minor things that could use a tweak, but overall it looks fine to me. Could you elaborate what's wrong? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 13:13 (UTC)

I mean "rank within Russia". It is not really "2nd", is it? Colchicum (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad. I've made the corrections. Of course, the rank should be the same as on the page the link is pointing to. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 15:24 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, but it is only a short-term solution, which will last until someone else introduces the same very likely error again. The last one survived long enough to worry about it. Colchicum (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, editors just need to pay attention to what it is they are changing :) I sure screwed up myself this time, but that's not a good excuse.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)

I switched the location map template with a new map with window. Please update.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 17:08 (UTC)

Hi vsem yejikam! Vy ne mogli by proverit my English. Spasibo. Please check my English. Thank you. --Lawrentia (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]