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 2012

Hi Ezhiki, I've been off wiki for a while, and before that one of my last major contributions was reworking this template together with you. I noticed that the official results for the 2010 census are available now, which perhaps makes it a good moment to move the version of this template based on infobox settlement to mainspace (we couldn't do that before because it didn't have enough space to include the 2002 statistics, but this should no longer be an issue). What's your opinion on this? Let me know!--Lady Pablo (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome back! Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we go through this last time and found that the result produced with Infobox Settlement does not work well compared to what a dedicated template can do? Census fields weren't the only problem. If you have a draft based on Infobox Settlement sitting somewhere, can you please remind me where it is so I could take another look? Perhaps I'm confusing it with a different template. However, even with the census fields alone, the 2010 Census is certainly not the last one Russia was planning to conduct :) This very same problem will arise a few years from now when the next census is started—are we going to re-design this template all over again then? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2012; 13:39 (UTC)

Ah, it's the one on your user page, right? So, I tried in a couple articles, and with the exception of a few cosmetic changes (which I think were an improvement), I don't see any difference in output. Which is great and wonderful, but my question is: if the two templates produce nearly exact same output, what's the point of changing what we have? The cosmetic changes can easily be incorporated into the current template, and your version has a slightly higher preprocessor node count, post-expand include size, and template argument size (which is not surprising, since you are routing the same functionality through another template). Should the template require any further changes (such as when it's time for another census :)), the current template is certainly more amenable to modifications than having to sift through a gazillion of options Infobox Settlement offers (and which may or may not suit the purpose). So, in the end, if you don't mind me asking, what is the benefit? It ain't broke, why fix it? Thanks,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2012; 14:24 (UTC)

You're right, it's no great improvement over the current version and I brought it up mostly because it has been sitting on my user page for months ;)

The inhabited locality infobox, on the other hand, is long overdue for a makeover. If I were to rebuild it from scratches I would probably still use Infobox Settlement as a wrapper however, since it's so widely used for just about any inhabited place. Is that alright with you?--Lady Pablo (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, alright with me if you want to try (it's not like I can tell you what to do or not to do!), but I have the same concerns and more. If the re-built template is going to have the same functionality with no added benefits, then what's the point? Even with the federal subject template, you are basically overriding most parameters—to me, that's no different than simply using the generic building blocks of {{Infobox}} (which is a cleaner approach and results in a more flexible template without artificial restraints of Infobox Settlement, although you did surprise me last time by saying that you see no benefit in that approach). In addition, the inhabited locality template must support both the administrative and municipal aspect of a place—can Infobox Settlement do that? Last time someone tried to take a jab at that task, that infobox failed miserably. Can it display them in an order that makes sense? Will the re-designed infobox automatically generate the Russia-specific location map? The time zone information? Will it be able to check for common administrative/municipal field conflicts when parameters are entered incorrectly? What about the census—it is the same problem as with the federal subject? I'd say these are all interesting problems that make for a challenging programming task, but I just don't see any practical value in a conversion even if they are all overcome. Infobox Settlement is a bloated monstrosity, and the fact that templates like Russian inhabited locality cannot be converted without either bloating it even further or re-defining its parameters via a wrapper (which, for the federal subject template, for example, turned out to be not much shorter than the original; and certainly not any easier to maintain in the long run) doesn't win it any points, in my opinion. If you can reason me wrong, please do :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2012; 19:59 (UTC)

Hi Ëzhiki! I did some work on the template in the sandbox (my own as well as the template's), you can see some of the results here. Of course it's still pretty much a work in progress but it seemed to work with the few articles I checked.--Lady Pablo (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll certainly take a look. Before I make any comments, however, would you please be so kind and answer my previous questions above? Regardless of the implementation, I still don't understand the purpose of the re-design or see its alleged benefits. What is wrong with the existing template that the new one fixes? What benefits does the re-designed template add? From where I stand, you seem to be going through a lot of effort just to reproduce something we already have (which, to my knowledge, works perfectly for its purpose) at the risk of introducing new bugs. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2012; 16:34 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have already made a list of a number of things I don't like about the current version, it's a bit unpolished as it was mostly intended as a memo for myself. You can find it in my user page.--Lady Pablo (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are my thoughts after trying the template out and seeing the code. However, let me start with the list of issues you have on your user page. Incidentally, I don't think any one of them warrants a complete re-design, as they can be dealt with just as well within the existing template. So, my question still stands—if you can elaborate further, I'd greatly appreciate it.

1. it includes many informations not normally found in infoboxes, and are probably better presented in the lede

   I won't comment on this one in depth, since I need to first know which fields you mean. However, most of this infobox's fields not found in other infoboxes are way too specific to be placed into a lede (which is supposed to be a summary of the article, not an infobox substitute).

   1. "Administrative center of", is probably already specified in the first few words of the article

      When it's a straightforward situation (such as for a town which is the administrative center of a district), then yes, it often is. However, it's all too often not straightforward at all, as sometimes a place is the administrative center of several entities; often both municipal and administrative—putting it all in the lede will result in an awful clunky lede, and placing it in a standalone section often makes it hard to find and eyeball.

2. automatically transcludes a large amount of 'citation needed' tags for facts that are either trivial or unlikely to be challenged

   We've been through this already. Facts which are truly trivial, supereasy to verify, or unlikely to be challenged (such as the values in the website or federal subject field, or the coordinates) do not generate these tags. Everything else need verification and, sadly, often lacks it in the body of the text. How is municipal jurisdiction, for example, "trivial"? My standard reply to this concern is that if you don't like seeing the "citation needed" tags, go spend fifteen minutes on finding and adding sources to suppress them. If that's too much to ask, I assure you that I fully intend to personally hunt down and eliminate each and every "citation needed" tag in these infoboxes. And although overall it will, of course, take me a while to do, I am always willing to take requests to ref an individual article someone has a problem with.

3. references are also used quite liberally, Vladivostok provides an example of this: the location of the city within the Primorsky Krai is made self-evident by the location map. This extensive use of references to verify patently accurate informations only contributes to the visual clutter.

   I think you are confusing location with jurisdiction. With Vladivostok, location of the city is made self-evident by just having the city's coordinates—technically, you don't even need a location map! Jurisdiction, however, is not the same as location. First, there are two jurisdictional aspects for any inhabited locality (administrative and municipal). Second, while it's extremely rare for a location to change, jurisdiction may change quite often. In fact, in Russia it may change so often, that it is useful not only to provide a reference, but to also tell the readers as of which date the reference for the jurisdictional information is current! There is nothing "patently accurate" about the fact that Vladivostok is administratively incorporated as a city under krai jurisdiction and municipally—as an urban okrug. These facts are entirely non-obvious and need verification.

4. it's too complex considering that it handles just over 1,000 articles. the main template is 25k in size and it calls another 30kb template just to determine the correct location map

   It handles just over 1,000 articles now, but it belongs in 150,000+ articles (the number of inhabited localities in Russia as of now, all of which will eventually need to be created and use this infobox). The template for the location maps actually does more than just pulling the location map, but I fully agree that it is not optimal at all and could use a re-design. For one, it includes a large number of spelling variants for each federal subject—it was very useful to have when the work on these articles (which were then a complete mess) just started, but it is not nearly as useful now. I'd estimate that template can be cut in size by three-quarters by just eliminating the spelling variants which are no longer likely to be encountered. It can be further optimized by splitting it into the parts responsible for different things.

   As for the main template being "too complex", I'd say it is much less complex than what you've just created (which is basically a hack wrapped around an unwieldy monster :))

5. the commons category shouldn't be included in the infobox (Wikipedia:Sister_projects#Where_to_place_links)

   It was someone else's idea to put it there. I personally think it's pretty clever and convenient to have it in the infobox, but I see the point how it's not a likely place to look for those who are accustomed to seeing it at the bottom of the article. This issue could probably use a broader discussion than just between you and me. At any rate, before these links can be removed from the infobox, someone will need to return them to the External links section in the affected articles. Note also that the "where to place links" section does not mandate one location for the Commons link; it merely suggests one.

6. 2002 census stats: removing them creates a glaring "Cite error" in some pages. This should be fixed in the corresponding articles rather than in the template (we can't keep the 2002 figures forever).

   Could you please give an example of an article which produces a cite error when the 2002 stats are removed? Other than that, yes, of course we can't keep them forever, nor is it the plan. As soon as the final 2010 Census numbers are released (currently they are only available on the federal subjects level, but not for districts or individual localities), the current preliminary 2010 Census results will need to be updated and the 2002 Census data will need to be removed. This is going to be true regardless of what kind of infobox the articles have, or whether they even have one at all.

7. overlinking of simple English words (flag, capital, etc)

   I mostly agree, but this is easily fixable in the current template. "Flag" and "coat of arms" were first linked in this template's predecessor years ago, when it was a general practice, but currently we tend to unlink simple words such as these. I do disagree with unlinking "capital", though. While it is a simple English word, in this infobox it is used in a highly specific sense (to contrast it with "administrative center"—an important difference!). Of course, it would help if the target article were more specific about the definition as it pertains to Russia :)

8. the right image maps, location maps and time zones for the article should be fetched by using the OKATO codes

   OK, this one I don't understand. Why? What's the benefit of using obscure Russia-specific codes (which a person not speaking Russian will have a helluva trouble even finding) as opposed to perfectly standard ISO codes?

Now for the template itself. First off, in my opinion, it looks and is organized much worse than the current template. Mind you, I don't consider the current template the epitome of designer's genius, but it is nevertheless cleaner and more organized than your proposal by leaps and bounds. I'm sure you will be able to address some of these concerns, but much of this I just don't see as fixable as long as you stick to Infobox Settlement:

1. The biggest problem is the flow. I see you made an effort to keep the administrative and municipal aspects together (which is good), but you also made "Government" into a separate section. However, it refers only to the municipal aspect, which is why the current template groups them together.
2. All in all, the new template looks cluttered. Since there are no longer section headers, it becomes more difficult to pinpoint the section being sought (or determining what aspect a section is dealing with).
3. The approach to the flow is very much hackish. Take, for example, administrative jurisdiction. In order to display it in in a location that makes sense, you had to tie the administrative jurisdiction to the demographics parameter of Infobox settlement. As this guy would say, "I have a two-part question" (Part one being "are you kidding me" and part two being "are you frigging kidding me"). If anything, you've created a perfect demonstration of why using Infobox Settlement is not a good idea for this template! Once you have to jam a value to an unrelated parameter intended for something else entirely, it is a sure sign it's time to stop :) How the template displays to readers is important, but making it easy to maintain is even more important. If, in order to achieve a goal, you have to start treating Infobox Settlement as a generic infobox, then why not just use the generic infobox to begin with?
4. Related to the above, once you have to fit values to ill-suited fields, you lose all flexibility. Current template can easily be re-arranged by just re-numbering the data/label combos. In fact, it's even easier to maintain than templates written solely in HTML! With yours, this task is either impossible, or one would have to resort to even more hacks such as the one with demographics field above. Which is, needless to say, not good at all.
5. I see you replaced the call to the locator map subtemplate with {{chop head and tail}}. It certainly significantly cuts the template size, but it also results in illiterate captions such as "location of XXX in Republic of Bashkortostan" and completely eliminates one of the maps if one forgets to wikilink the name of the federal subject (or links to it in an acceptable but unanticipated way).
6. You seem to have missed the longEW parameter. It's easy to fix, but it again demonstrates the pitfalls of an unnecessary complete re-design—you are bound to introduce new bugs which are hard to catch and which affect some articles in a profusely negative way.
7. The new templates no longer detects impossible combinations of administrative and municipal jurisdictions. The difference between the two aspects is definitely something an encyclopedia worth its salt must cover, and considering how this subject is often confusing even to native Russian speakers, having an extra safeguard is of paramount importance. We can't, of course, fully prevent introduction of such mistakes, but we surely can catch the most common types and give an early warning!
8. Why are the flag and coat of arms at the very top? The purpose of the infobox is to answer the most common questions about the subject of the article (and, preferably, in the order of their commonality). It makes sense that the first question would be "what is it and how does it look like", which is answered by having the name(s) and a well-selected picture at the top. I can't really imagine that the second question would be "what do its flag and coat of arms look like" :) In reality, it probably "where is it"; a question answered by the maps and the coordinates. After that, it's less clear-cut, and while the flag is probably still not the next question, at least at this point it makes sense to group it with the rest of the images. But now I'm just nit-picking :)

Hopefully I've been specific enough. If I catch something else, I'll certainly follow-up.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2012; 18:03 (UTC)

It will take me a while to answer all these points in full. In the meantime, it's probably better to move the discussion to WP Russia (if I've written something inaccurate in the introductory post feel free to edit it to reflect your view), both to give other users a chace to express their opinions and to avoid filling your user talk with my chatter ;)--Lady Pablo (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, take all the time you need. We are not in any particular hurry :) Also, I've summarized my response above an the Wikiproject talk below your post. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2012; 13:22 (UTC)

		100,000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100,000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work! – From: Northamerica1000(talk) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I appreciate the gesture, but I've been (unsuccessfully) trying to find a cure against countitis for several years now and this isn't helping :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2012; 20:38 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Myshkinsky District			Don Cossacks
	Sbiten			Russian legislative election, 2011
	Primorsko-Akhtarsk			Subdivisions of Russia
	Volkhovsky District		Merge
	Boksitogorsky District			Tsentralny District, Saint Petersburg
	Timashyovsk			Factory (software concept)
	Gulkevichi			Bashkirs
	Ust-Labinsk		Add sources
	Kingiseppsky District			Yanaul
	Luzhsky District			Afanasyevsky District
	Kirishsky District			Tuymazy
	Korenovsk		Wikify
	Khadyzhensk			Salawat Yulayev
	Nikita Simonyan			Yaroslav's Court
	Tikhvinsky District			Golden sample
	Slantsevsky District		Expand
	Kurganinsk			Zilim River
	Kirovsky District, Leningrad Oblast			Abinsk
	Batetsky District			Vitebsk Raion

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) 18:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.

I'm scouring user pages looking for inspiring, motivating and interesting stories of how Wikipedia has affected the lives of people. I'm asking questions like "How has Wikipedia changed your life?", "What's the most interesting story you have about Wikipedia?" and "Has Wikipedia ever surprised you?"

Last year, we used the annual fundraiser as a way to show the world who it is who actually writes Wikipedia. We featured editors from Brazil, Ukraine, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, India, United States and England. This campaign was a huge success, resulting in the most financially successful fundraising campaign ever. It was also a campaign that stayed true to the spirit of Wikipedia, educating the public that this free top-5 website is created by volunteers like you and I.

This year we want to highlight more Russian-language Wikipedia editors, so I am in the process of planning a trip to Russia to interview editors.

If you or someone you know (or have heard about) has been positively affected by Wikipedia, or have something interesting to say about Wikipedia I'd very much like to hear about it!

Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know someone else with whom I should speak.

Of course, if you have any questions or concerns, please ask! I will answer as soon as I can. I apologize for any poor translation of this letter, I am using Google-translate. I hope it makes you laugh :)

Thank you for your time,

Victor Grigas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Victorgrigas

vgrigas@wikimedia.org

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Shimanovsky and Svobodensky are the districts which Vostochny Cosmodrome will be located at, and there is no map of them. I think it's important to map them due to the strategic facillity that is now built in their teritory. Do you know how to create and add maps of them? Superzohar Talk 14:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably slap up together a basic (and ugly) map, but there are other people who'll be able to do a much better job. I'll ask the person who helped me in the past why there are no district maps for Amur Oblast yet; although it's most likely because usable sources to make such a map aren't readily available.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 7, 2012; 18:49 (UTC)

I read your reply in the WP Russia talk page. I renew my suggestion for you and Pablo to seek an outside opinion (and some designing advice) from someone with more experience in editing similar templates (WP:WikiProject Infoboxes would be the obvious place to look). Cheers, eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, but it's really redundant (we both already know that! :)). Pablo's original question was about the overall look and feel of the re-designed infobox vs the current box; autocite issue is only a part of it. I personally think the proposed box is not organized as well and I have a big problem with the fact that it is coded using a questionable approach, that it is going to be a pain to maintain in the long run, that it is not at all flexible in case changes need to be made in the future, and that every single Pablo's concern can be resolved by tweaking the existing template instead of creating a brand new one. Inquiring at WT:RUSSIA is a logical first step to clear all this up, since it's this WikiProject's members who are actually going to use the infobox, fill it out, and make sure that the information it contains is accurate (and verifiable). If issues which are beyond this project's scope surface, of course they can be taken elsewhere for wider input.

I also see that you preferred to post a short note here rather than address my concern about putting looks above verifiability. Funny, that :)

Best wishes,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2012; 16:22 (UTC)

I dislike addressing the same 'concerns' over and over again. Word to the wise and all that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you haven't addressed this one even once.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2012; 16:38 (UTC)

Nope, I have. I've said before that I consider the situation of infoboxes to be similar to the lead of an article, even if there's no policy mandating this. You disagreed, but instead of Refuting the Central Point (no other template on wikipedia behaves like this one, which points to an obvious consensus even lacking a policy) you just went through the previous points again. I've already expressed my opinion on the matter. Please do not write another wall-o-text if you're not genuinely interested in my point of view, I'm not trying to change your mind.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you haven't. You danced around it quite a bit, is all. You never gave any examples showing a consensus that infoboxes are to be treated the same way as the leads (and by "examples" I don't necessarily mean "policy"; a simple discussion thread on the topic showing a decisive consensus would have shut me up). What you did provide is an assumption that since no other template in Wikipedia behaves like this, it must mean there is a universal agreement that they shouldn't. Sorry, but this is not a "central point"; this is mere speculation. When something is not observed to be done a certain way, it may very well mean that no one else thought about doing things that way before. For all we know, the new way is an improvement (like the introduction of the reference system was in 2005), but unless pros and cons of that way are discussed based on their merits and not on speculative empiric observations, it's hard to establish, isn't it? Which is why I inevitably return to the same question—how come you put visual appeal (which is nice to have, but not mandatory) above verifiability concerns (addressing which is mandatory)? Do you honestly believe that not marking unreferenced facts taken from who-knows-where (and most of which don't "summarize" shit) in, say, this article's infobox (which, by the way, is a very mild illustration of the problem), will improve the article and "serve our readers better"? Honestly?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2012; 17:17 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki, you changed the article and wrote (rv--the article is about the administrative divisions. The map deals with the municipal divisions). I don't quite understand, are Russian municipal divisions not identical with administrative divisions? Can you recommend a source with an overview over Russian 2nd and 3rd level (like counties) divisions, the Russian way seems to be confusing. Der Eberswalder (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! The administrative divisions are a concept distinct from that of the municipal divisions, although it is true that many municipal divisions are formed within the borders of the administrative divisions. The latter are used by the federal and oblast governments, while the former are the units of local self-government. And while in Kaliningrad Oblast the main differences between the two can only be observed below the district level, putting up an overview map of municipal divisions and labeling it "administrative" is still a bad idea. Ideally, of course, the article should cover both aspects (and be renamed after that), in a manner similar to one used in this article, but so far there have been no takers for this (rather daunting) task.

There is a brief explanation of both aspects in the subdivisions of Russia article (see the sections titled "administrative divisions" and "municipal divisions"), and you can also peruse the Adygea article I linked to above, since the idea behind the differences is the same across all of the federal subjects of Russia. Hope this helps. Don't hesitate to let me know if anything still needs clarification, or if you have questions after reading those two articles. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2012; 20:47 (UTC)

Hello! i would like to transfer the picture of the satellite from the hebrew wikipedia to the english counterpart. http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Kwangyongsong_3.jpg how to do it? Superzohar Talk 11:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't read Hebrew, but it looks that the image is copyrighted, so it can't be transferred to the Commons. You can, however, save it to your computer and then upload it to the English Wikipedia using this upload form. Note, however, that you'll be doing so under the fair use provisions, and if those aren't met, the image will be deleted pretty quickly. If you have any questions regarding the process or unsure if this image qualifies for fair use, please ask at WP:CQ, because my familiarity with this kind of issues is only perfunctory.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 13, 2012; 11:52 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten, will get them done on the weekend!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; much appreciated as usual!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 13, 2012; 18:00 (UTC)

Done both, but I had to add a digit in the population templates to stop them giving an error.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into the error.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2012; 13:17 (UTC)

Actually, could you please show me where the error occurs? I removed the digits here trying to replicate it, but the result looks the way it is supposed to look when no parameter is entered. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2012; 13:24 (UTC)

Area. I presumed the pop figures would create the error like it does for area..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. No, the pop template is designed to catch this kind of stuff. The reason why you didn't see this error with area before is because in the past I normally left the sentence dealing with the area commented out. I'll resume doing so in future templates.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2012; 13:35 (UTC)

OK and I'll avoid adding digits into the pop fields!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Re: this and the hatnote in Russia. The points made here are of course valid, and the constitution indeed was taken in 1993, but still you write yourself that "the RSFSR was renamed in 1991". Existence of the RSFSR in 1992-1993 is something contrary to the typical understanding of events as well as contrary to the naming. I'd propose to restore the more common dating but make a note explaining the situation with state progression in detail. GreyHood ^Talk 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I understand what you mean, but while the 1991 date is firmly entrenched into everyone's mind as the typical understanding of events, that does not make it the right date :) I've never seen an academic work that explicitly says that the modern Russian Federation started in 1991; at best those works are vaguely worded than this date could be implied; at worst the wording is such that the 1991 date is inferred from the 1991 renaming of the country. However, if we aim at being an accurate encyclopedia, we should make an effort to stick with the facts, not with what the public opinion dictates.

As a quick check, I've pulled a random book off my shelf from the section which deals with post-Soviet Russia, which turned out to be a somewhat dry Federalism and Local Politics in Russia from the BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies, edited by Cameron Ross and Adrian Campbell and published in 2009, and which is basically a collection of various articles on the subject of post-Soviet federalism. There, on pages 25–26 it speaks about the Russian "federations": one that endured for nearly seventy years, as... the USSR (1922-91), and the other as its putative successor, the Russian Federation, formally for a mere fifteen years (1993-to date) (emphasis mine—Ё). It further describes the 1991-1993 period as "the resurgence of Russia". As far as understand, this is the view prevalent in the academia, and while it may seem counter-intuitive at first, it makes perfect sense the more you think about it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2012; 19:53 (UTC)

You see, the problem is that in 1992-1993 the Russian Federation was neither Soviet, nor Socialist, so extending the term RSFSR to that period is strange ;) The part of the source which you have cited does not define exactly what was the state in 1991-1993, but I guess the source would not claim it was Soviet or Socialist. The term "Russian Federation" apparently was used long before in the Soviet Era on the part of the RSFSR. As for the change of the name, here is a citation from Richard Sakwa, "Russian Politics and Society": Russia became an independent state, and the Sixth Congress in April 1992 adopted a constitutional amendment that abolished the name ‘RSFSR’ and introduced ‘Russia’ and ‘Russian Federation’ as names with equal legal validity. So, the name of the country was constitutionally changed in 1992, and extending it to 1993 is historically inaccurate.

Of course, the whole legal base of the state order was changed later, with the adoption of the new constitution in 1993. But on that ground to claim that modern Russian Federation started in 1993 is similar to claiming that the United States started in 1788 with the adoption of the constitution, not in 1776 with the declaration of independence or in 1783 with its recognition.

In case of Russia we have:

1990 - declaration of sovereignty.

1991 - de facto split from the other Soviet Republics and de facto stopping being Soviet and Socialist

1992 - formal adoption of the modern official names of the country

1993 - modern constitution

To all this one could add a question: if RSFSR ceased to exist in 1993 only with the adoption of the new constitution, did other Soviet Republics also exist until their new constitutions were adopted? And in case Russia adopts a new constitution in the following years (which is quite possible, there are two research institutes working on the projects of a new constitution), will Russia become a new state then? GreyHood ^Talk 16:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the country was not called "Socialist" or "Federative" in 1917–1918 either, yet both years are also included into the date span and no one seems to have a problem with that :) The problem, as I see it, is that our articles normally use the most recent name as a title, but in this case the entity was called the RSFSR for most of its existence, and the other names only were in use for a few years, so renaming the article "Russian Federation" would have been a bad idea even if the legal entity that succeeded it had had a different name.

On the issue of my source not claiming that the country in 1991-1993 was "Soviet" or "Socialist", you are partially correct, but that's not the question the article primarily deals with. It does, however, on more than one occasion explicitly exclude the 1991-1993 period from the date span of the modern Russian Federation, which leaves us with a choice of either having a separate article for the 1991-1993 period (which is a really horrible idea), or including this period with the RSFSR (which at least makes sense from the legal standpoint and is supported by the sources). This is further supported by the fact that the 1978 Constitution still referred to the society (if not the country itself) as "Soviet" and "socialist" even after the most recent amendments in 1992.

With the other Soviet Republics, one would have to check how the question of their existence is handled in academic sources (I don't really have much interest in that aspect, so I don't have any specific examples). However, you seem to be operating under the assumption that those sources have to treat this matter in a logically consistent manner; sadly, that's not always the case. When sources are contradicting one another, the best we can do is to carefully point it out, but the task of straightening out said inconsistencies is not our job as Wikipedians.

To answer your last question, no, if Russia adopts a new Constitution, the article is unlikely to be affected. That's for the same reasons as why we don't have separate articles for the RSFSR under the 1918, 1925, 1937, and 1978 Constitutions. The reason why we have separate articles for the Russian Empire, the RSFSR, and modern Russia, is because the RSFSR was unique in that it was a part of the USSR for most of its history (so the article deals primarily, but not exclusively, with the republic within the USSR, not a separate country), but just as the 1917-1922 period is included into the RSFSR span, the 1991-1993 span is also included. It may not be the most clean way to handle it, but from what I've read, that's the approach most common in the academia, hence that's the approach we should adopt as well. And while I wholeheartedly agree with your logic above, it's important to remember that our first duty is to record and summarize the knowledge, not to improve it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2012; 17:00 (UTC)

In 1917 the country at least was proclaimed socialist and the power was taken by Bolsheviks supported by the soviets, which all justifies the application of "Soviet" and "Socialist". So I guess the best approach is the de facto approach. And de facto the USSR ceased to exist in 1991 and in 1992-1993 Russia experienced capitalist economic reforms and officially dropped the terms "Soviet" and "Socialist". I see why some scholars may hesitate including 1991-1993 into the date span of the modern Russian Federation (note, however, that even your source says formally for a mere fifteen years (1993-to date) ), but I strongly doubt that this necessitates inclusion of the same period into the RSFSR date span. Sakwa, for example is careful to write about 1991-1993 as transitional period, but he uses the general term Russia, not the RSFSR. I think that to extend the RSFSR date span we should have consensus among the majority of sources that RSFSR existed in 1992-1993, and the sources should directly say that. GreyHood ^Talk 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article 9 of the 1978 Constitution, even after the final 1992 amendments, said that "further development of socialist democracy" is the direction in which the political system of the Soviet society should move and consistently referred to the country's citizenry as "Soviet people". Chapter 4 was titled "Внешнеполитическая деятельность и защита социалистического Отечества", which is pretty close to the wording and spirit of the original 1918 Constitution (and the Constitutions that followed). The only difference is that these words were no longer used in the intro, but de facto the country's goals remained both "Soviet" and "socialist". Note that your Sakwa's example does not in fact refer to the country's declared political system, but rather only its name. Note that no one is trying to say that it is correct the refer to the country as "the RSFSR" during 1991-1993. It is equally incorrect to use this name to refer to the country in 1917-1918. However, both periods are included into the RSFSR article because it is definitely incorrect to include the 1917-1918 period with the Russian Empire, it is also incorrect (although, arguably, less so) to include the 1991-1993 period into the modern Russian Federation period, and it makes little sense to make these periods into stand-alone articles. The confusion is merely due to the choice of the title for our article—it uses the name which prevailed longest during the country's/republic's history, instead of the most recent name as more often is the case (but which would not work well in this case). The span during which the legal entity existed (under whatever name) is more or less universally accepted to be 1917-1993; I certainly can't recall seeing it explicitly questioned in anything I've ever read.

Theoretically, I would not be opposed to putting the span as "1917-1991 or 1993" in the RSFSR article, footnoting at the same time that various historians have different opinions regarding the end date, but that would only be on condition that one can in fact find sources that explicitly state that 1991 is the RSFSR's end date, and that the modern Federation also started in 1991. The only sources I can find either use the 1993 date straight up (as in my example above), or carefully sidestep the issue (like Sakwa does in his fairly recent Federalism and Democracy in the Russian Federation, for example), which proves only that some authors believe it's 1993, and others are hesitant to use either date as the divide. To me, that makes 1993 our best choice. What we can't do is to draw "logical conclusions" based on what we merely think the sources mean or, worse yet, what they "should" mean. That's the first step towards original research.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2012; 18:40 (UTC)

Hm, your example says about the formal start of modern Russian Federation since 1993. And the existence of other sources and authors who support this thesis doesn't automatically mean that the same sources and authors would support the thesis that the RSFSR existed until 1993. Yes, we have a transitional period which is excluded from the constitutional post-1993 Russian Federation by some, but inclusion of that transitional period to the RSFSR remains a question, and in my view even more questionable question than merging of the period with the post-1993 Russia. So again, we need consensus among the sources which would directly state the existence of the RSFSR in 1992-1993. The consensus on the point that formally and legally we may be sure that the modern Russian Federation started at least from 1993 is not enough since it deals with post-1993 period, not with the 1991-1993.

Perhaps the date span apparently could be put as "1917-1991 or 1992 or 1993" (or perhaps even 1918-1990) according to different definitions.

As for the wording of the 1978 constitution which was not immediately amended - well, obviously they could not change all the legal base in an instant, and while the constitution was adopted only in 1993, it was started to get prepared long before: The birth of the new Russian constitution was a long and painful process. Four days after the revolutionary Declaration of Sovereignty of the RSFSR on 12 June 1990, the First Russian CPD on 16 June established a Constitutional Commission to prepare a document that would reflect Russia’s new juridical and political status. Apparantly the first draft was fairly socialist, though Sakwa writes that it was attacked as being ‘anti-Soviet’. But then, after August 1991, With the fall of Soviet power ideological issues, such as individual rights, civil society and judicial reform, were no longer so contentious, but new points of disagreement had emerged. These focused above all on the separation of powers on the horizontal level (between executive and legislative power), and on the vertical level (between the central authorities and components of the federation). Basically in 1991-1993 the consensus was that the country needed new constitution, but because of the power separation disagreements they could not adopt the constitution for all that long time. Which again shows that de facto the country changed in 1991, nominally changed in 1992, and only formally the full legal transition was completed in 1993. GreyHood ^Talk 20:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position, I actually like many aspects of the idea that the modern Russian Federation started in 1993. It is much nicer version of events when the country starts with the legal adoption of its basic law than when it starts with a coup and a dissolution of the larger country. But too many de facto developments preclude the wide acceptance of this version. Change of the name of the country, change of its flag in late 1991, de facto stopping being Soviet and socialist by 1992 at the latest - all this doesn't help to accept the "up to 1993" RSFSR version. GreyHood ^Talk 20:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are complicating the matter too much here. As far as Wikipedia goes, we only care about what the sources say. I have shown a source which explicitly dates the start of the modern country to 1993, you do not have a source that equally explicitly dates the start of the modern country to 1991 (Sakwa addresses only the issue of renaming in your example, and he masterfully dances around this issue in his other publications), and I believe we both agree that creating a separate article just for 1991-1993 would be a horrible idea under any circumstances. That leaves the 1991-1993 span no other place other than the RSFSR period. Like I said before, I've never seen a source that puts the end of the RSFSR at 1991, but since I obviously cannot claim I've read everything available on this subject, it may very well turn out that such a source exists. When it is found, the article will need to be amended to include both dates and to cite both views. Until it is found, however, I see no good reason why we should be interpreting the sources on our own or why any sort of consensus should override our most basic policy with regards to the sources.

You are obviously entitled to disagree with this assessment. If you wish to start a discussion about this involving a broader audience (I'm sure the folks currently debating Soviet federalism on Talk:Soviet Union will be delighted to include this topic into the scope of their discussion), you are welcome to use this thread as a starting point or even copy-paste it in its entirety and tie it to an RfC. I will be gone on vacation later this week and won't be able to participate, but that's OK, as I don't think I'll be able to add anything substantial to what I've already said anyway. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2012; 13:56 (UTC)

Indeed, no more point in repeating the arguments, so just few primary points to make it clear: you too do not have a source that explicitly dates RSFSR to 1993, that's a problem, and while many authors write about the formal start of modern Russia in 1993 and it is indeed pointless to have a separate article on 1991-1993, this does not mean that merging it with the RSFSR is a good and only possible solution - we should not so freely interprete the sources. Most authors agree that Soviet Socialism ended in 1991 and by the same logic (but in the other direction) we could add the transitional period nowhere else than to the RF rather than to the RSFSR. So basically, if this logic is adopted, it certainly does not provide a clear single solution. Which is strange. I won't pursue the issue while you are on vacation, and I'll be happy with the 1917–1993 RSFSR date span if all the primary details of the dating and state transition are explained in a note (I've just noticed btw - the inclusion of both transitional periods - 1917 and 1991-1993 - to the RSFSR is rather generous ;) ). The 1993 dating, however, visually contradicts the wording in the intro of the RSFSR article and perhaps elsewhere in the body. Also, the hatnote in Russia looks highly confusive to me, even while I understand what it means. ;) Good holidays to you! GreyHood ^Talk 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, point taken. When I find a source that explicitly dates the end of the RSFSR to 1993 (and I'm pretty sure I've seen one; just can't remember where—and as my luck would have it, it's probably in a pile of books I sent to storage!), I'll certainly let you know. I do, however, disagree with your logic in the post immediately above—the "Soviet socialism" is not the same concept as the RSFSR (the former is an ideology while the latter is a country/republic), so the logic is not the same, and the resulting conclusion is thus flawed. For all intents and purposes though, I'm starting to believe that it is the infobox approach that's the problem, not the dates. Some facts are just too complex to handle in the simplistic way the infobox forces us to. This should be addressed mostly in the text (with perhaps a note in the infobox saying "see text"), even though I still think the text should be based on what the sources say, not on what our logic leads us to believe.

As far as the hatnote in Russia goes, if you can think of a way to word that idea better, by all means please do so. Same goes for initiating a broader discussion—I don't mind one being had while I'm gone. All the points I could possibly make are already in this thread, and, to be frank, this whole issue is only of limited interest to me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2012; 13:35 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if I disappeared for a while but I've been terribly busy (still am in fact). By rapidly sifting through the discussions so far I understand that you most oppose using infobox settlement, so I will try and create a html-based template over the weekend (probably). I'll send you a message when it's ready so we can discuss changes and improvements. Cheers! Lady Pablo (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, you do have a tendency to suddenly disappear :) No worries, though—we all have times when we are terribly busy in real life, and we are all volunteers here.

Regarding creating an html-based template this weekend, please note that I'm leaving on vacation later this week, and thus won't be able to provide any feedback until I return in May. To be honest, though, I'd be more interested in first seeing your responses to my questions and counter-arguments above. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2012; 14:00 (UTC)

I think the points 1 to four can be solved by using html: government and municipal sections can be merged, the sections headers can be added back, and of course there won't be no need to use any "hacks" ;) 5: a string template can be used to detect whether the caption begins with "Republic" and accordingly add "the". 6: of course the template would be tested extensively for bugs before being moved to mainspace. 7: I'm not sure if this is worth keeping, it depends on how many lines of code it requires and how "expensive" it would be. 8: by using html, all the sections can be moved to any part of the infobox, including the flag. I will answer your other arguments as soon as I have the template working in my sandbox. Bye for now and wonderful holidays to you Ezhiki!--Lady Pablo (talk) 00:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the answers! Here are a few more points to further the discussion:

On point one, yes, I understand that using html is better than using Infobox Settlement; my point, however, is that using {{Infobox}} has its own benefits which raw html does not have.

On point five, not all republics' names start with "Republic"; some end in "Republic" (cf. "Republic of Bashkortostan" vs. "Udmurt Republic"). I realize that can be caught by using a string template as well, but the question of flexibility and convenience still stands. With your approach, unless the value in the federal_subject field is wikilinked and is exactly what the template expects to see, you are risking losing the second map altogether. The subtemplate, on the other hand, can support a number of the most common name variants, and it is not so large as to visibly affect page loading time or eat up the page template allowances. All in all, using a subtemplate adds flexibility to the main template at the expense of the template allowance reserve (which exists exactly for that purpose). I don't see a compelling reason to make the template less flexible just to free up (and not even re-use) some of that reserve.

(Let's make this point 5a). I've just noticed that your remake no longer shows the ISO codes. In itself it is no big deal, but the same can be said about pretty much any other field in the template, and the lack of support is definitely not an improvement. I don't think this one can be solved by using string templates, though :)

On point six, who is going to do the testing?

On point seven, I respectfully disagree. In the current version, it is not expensive at all, and I find it to be a very useful safeguard. It's easy to enter the right value into the wrong field, and the error message points this out immediately upon preview even before the changes are committed. Also, of course, point seven is only a problem if the template is IS-based; the functionality should be easy to replicate in html.

On point eight, using generic {{Infobox}} makes moving sections around easy even for those who are not familiar with html.

That said, thanks for the warm holiday wishes :) I probably won't be able to continue with this discussion until May, so talk to you then! Also, just so you know, I asked this user to comment on the existing infobox, and he obliged here. He is a heavy user of this template, and he has no reasons to be attached to this template as strongly as I may seem to be, which makes his observations especially valuable. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2012; 13:18 (UTC)

Greetings, Ezhiki. It's been a long time since I talked to you last, since I haven't done much on Russia lately. I am questioning why all of these Russian Federal Subject infobox maps are defaulted to 1:100,000 scale. What is the point of drilling down to some irrelevant detail? I just very recently edited a few (previously unmapped) articles with more appropriately-scaled maps. I would re-do the whole mess of them, but I am not sure how to unlock the default scale. Backspace (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, long time no see :) Regarding your question, I assume this is the kind of edit you have in mind? Just so you know, moving the coordinates out of the infobox into a {{coord}} template is completely unnecessary. The infobox code itself can easily be tweaked to change the default scale (which will automatically change it in all articles which utilize that infobox). 1:100,000 is only used because that's the scale other similar infoboxes used at the time this infobox was designed. If you think 1:500,000 is better, I have no objections. However, I would appreciate it if you moved the coordinates back to the infobox after this change has been implemented. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions, of course. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 17:56 (UTC)

OK, it looks that I remembered incorrectly. The infobox template does not hardcode the scale, but it does specify region:RU_type:adm2nd, which is 1:300,000 by default. If you think that's still too detailed, you should probably bring it up on the {{coord}}'s talk page. The template simply uses the definition which, I assume, was agreed upon elsewhere. There most certainly is no need to override this manually in hundreds of articles. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 20:09 (UTC)

I do not know what a "typical" size is for a Russian "district", so I can't argue whether 1:300,000 is a reasonable default scale to use. All I can say is that, for the recent additions and changes that I have made, I used vastly different scales because, of the ones that I edited, most were among the largest "districts" in Russia. For instance, my edit of Krasnoarmeysky District, Primorsky Krai used a scale of 1:2,500,000, which allowed the entire district to be displayed on a map without zooming in or out. When you changed it back to the default value of 1:300,000, the map was zoomed in so far that I could not tell where the district was. It could have been anyplace, as most of these maps do not provide an outline of the district's borders. Many of the maps in Wikipedia (not just on Russian topics) seem as though they are trying to zoom in to a certain grain of sand, or drop of water (in the ocean)! I am, of course, exaggerating, but I hope you get my point. Backspace (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what you mean. However, you are also right that there is no "typical" size for a district in Russia, so I think it's impossible to pick just one scale that would accommodate them all (although adm2nd already covers most of them). On the other hand, I don't really see it as much of a problem. When I need to look at one of those maps, for example, it's usually because I'm trying to pinpoint a certain place within the district (so I'll have to zoom in anyway) or to see how a district is located compared to other districts (so I'll have to zoom out). The scale of 1:300,000 is usually a good enough starting point, even if on some occasions it's an overkill or an underkill. And of course, district borders not showing on a map doesn't do much for usability regardless of the scale :)

It is actually not that difficult to add something like a "coord_scale" parameter to the infobox template (to be used for unusually large or unusually small districts), but, frankly, I just don't see it as an improvement worth making. Every district would eventually have an svg map roughly corresponding to the area you are trying to replicate in external map services, so if the external map is off by one or two zoom levels, is it really that big of a deal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 11, 2012; 13:21 (UTC)

Another good example is my recent edit of Taymyrsky Dolgano-Nenetsky District. The map scale that I chose pretty much approximated the area shown on the already-displayed map on the upper right of the article. When you reverted to the default scale, it pretty much zoomed in to a very tiny part of the district, without much indication of where the displayed area related to any surrounding entities. Backspace (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are quite right about that one. I've self-reverted. This district, however, is an abnormally large entity, and there aren't many more like it. Overall, I stand by my opinion that this is too isolated a problem to bother fixing (and I can't really think of a solution that's not too cumbersome :)). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 11, 2012; 20:35 (UTC)

Hi, some time ago I noticed you have a certain interest in handling minor geographical issues. Therefore I would like to invite you to join Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geography)#Let_us_start_to_work_it_into_a_policy_proposal when you come back. I did post some community notices but see surprizingly little interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I am, unfortunately, too busy in real life to meaningfully contribute to that discussion, but I will be tracking its progress with interest (and perhaps join when things slow down on my end). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 17:58 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Gavrilov-Yamsky District			Taganrog City Architectural Development Museum
	Pereslavsky District			Eagle (heraldry)
	Danilovsky District, Yaroslavl Oblast			The bell of Chersonesos
	Teykovo		Merge
	Coat of arms of Transnistria			Index of Economic Freedom 2003–2006
	Borisoglebsky District, Yaroslavl Oblast			Coat of arms of Serbia
	Terbunsky District			Krais of the Russian Empire
	Coat of arms of Guernsey		Add sources
	Bolsheselsky District			Shuya
	Lebedyansky District			Falyonsky District
	Coat of arms of Northern Cyprus			Uninsky District
	Nekrasovsky District		Wikify
	Vichuga			Ecotourism in the United States
	Chaplyginsky District			George Russell French
	Rostovsky District			Jack de Keyzer
	Lyubimsky District		Expand
	Coat of arms of Monaco			Kamchatka Krai
	Stanovlyansky District			State Archive of the Russian Federation
	Coat of arms of South Ossetia			Military-Industrial Commission of Russia

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) 23:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! i created the Template:Khasansky District. Maybe u can add categories or any improvement u think that it needs. thx Superzohar Talk 22:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll tweak it a bit in a few days.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 18:00 (UTC)

Hi, here is this picture. So: should Янисъярви be written Jänisjärvi or Yanisyarvi? Also, should this Russian cruiser Аврора be written Aurora or Avrora? --WPK (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question depends on the language in which you need to write that name. The sign in the picture is obviously in Russian and Karelian, not in English. Regarding Aurora/Avrora, it's the same explanation as with the Blagoveshchensky/Annunciation Bridge. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 10, 2012; 18:05 (UTC)

"...depends on the language in which you need to write that name." Not at all, the place in Russia, Jänisjärvi is a Finnish name - not a Russian, not an English etc. - and written on Cyrillic script in Russian Янисъярви (as if '"Janisjarvi" in Finnish and "Yanisyarvi" in English).

Aurora is a Latin name - not a Russian, not an English etc. - and written on Cyrillic script in Russian Аврора (as if "Avrora").

Karl Liebknecht is a German name - not a Russian, not an English etc. - so the place in Russia is Imeni Karla Liebknechta and written on Cyrillic script in Russian Имени Карла Либкнехта (as if "Imeni Karla Libknechta" in German and "Imeni Karla Libknekhta" in English).

Schmidt is a German name - not a Russian, not an English etc. - so the Annunciation Bridge in St. Petersburg, Russia was written on Cyrillic script in Russian Мост Лейтенанта Шмидта (1918-2007) - not on Latin script "Most Leytenanta Shmidta" (in English) or "Most Leitenanta Šmidta" (in Finnish), but Most Leytenanta (E.)/Leitenanta (F.) Schmidta.

Karl Marx is a German name - not a Russian, not an English etc. - so the many streets still named in Russia are written on Cyrillic script in Russian Улица Карла Маркса - not on Latin script "Ulitsa Karla Marksa", but Ulitsa Karla Marxa.

--WPK (talk) 11:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that spelling errors in File: names and Image: names, not to mention #REDIRECTS, should NOT be fixed, but occasionally do not notice the same. It would help if wiki could highlight say File: and Image: etc, is a different colour, not being black, to make these keywords easier to spot.

If one finds an incorrectly "corrected" File: names, mark it briefly rv bad File: name fix. Tabletop (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, and yes, it would have been nice to have those key words in a different color. I made this same mistake on more than one occasion myself :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 11, 2012; 13:24 (UTC)

I just noticed the new article Pushkin's park. Should this be Pushkin park instead? Looks like the aricle needs refs etc. I switched to a copy-right free image. INeverCry 22:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right, "Pushkin's park" is definitely incorrect. If the Russian name of the park is "парк Пушкина", then the article should be at "Pushkin Park", and if it's "Пушкинский парк", then the best title would be "Pushkinsky Park" (although "Pushkin Park" could work OK as well). At any rate, is it even notable?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 14, 2012; 13:28 (UTC)

It is Russian: Парк имени Пушкина, so that it should be Pushkin Park I guess. It is the biggest park in Saransk, I visited it couple of years ago. Must be notable, the question is whether someone will find the references proving notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then yes, I agree, "Pushkin Park" is the best choice. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 14, 2012; 13:50 (UTC)

I have completed all the articles in any way related to administrative divisions of Novgorod Oblast, and they are ready for inspection. In the meanwhile, I created one article on a district in Leningrad Oblast, and another one on a district in Pskov Oblast. I will greatly appreciate if you have a look at these two to correct the things, so that I could proceed with the others. No hurry though. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! By the way, I'm quickly approaching the stage in my own master plan (mwa-ha-ha) where I'll start working on the districts articles quickly (i.e., not just the paltry three a day I do now). I want to finish Kursk Oblast next, but then will be able to do all of Leningrad Oblast and can also do Pskov Oblast out of turn no problem. This way you'll have carcasses to grow meat on without having to worry about all those pesky formatting issues :)

Novgorod Oblast, that one I'll probably be reviewing gradually—it's easy to miss things when looking at larger articles in rapid sequence.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 16, 2012; 13:15 (UTC)

Do you advise me then to keep away from Leningrad and Pskov Oblasts until you create the carcasses? It would be in principle no problem, but then in the meanwhile I would need to do smth where we have the carcasses already. You are probably the only person having the total overview. What are the federal subjects which have the carcasses but are not completely done?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are welcome to work on any of those—least of all I want to be an impediment to real improvement! The only major inconvenience to me is when an infobox is already in place and partially populated (because it is easier to add the whole thing at once without worrying about accidentally overwriting existing bits), so if you could skip the infoboxes for now, that'd be much appreciated. Other than that, it's easy to shuffle existing text around. With your work in particular it's even easier, because you are adding text in well-defined blocks.

Regarding the existing carcasses, they are in place for all the krais and all the oblasts from Amur to Kurgan (in this order; Kurgan Oblast will be finished early next week). Republics are technically also all done, but some of those were finished so long ago that I'm now no longer satisfied with the condition they are in. This shouldn't be a problem for the kind of work you do, however.

If I may ask, what is your preferred order of work? Perhaps I could tweak something on my side so we don't end up standing in each other's way waiting for the other to start or finish?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 16, 2012; 13:40 (UTC)

I do not particularly care of the order. I am unwilling to take the republics for now, since it would require me going into a lot of stuff related to national cultures (the articles on the topic I see make me crying), and also probably not Moscow and not Saint Petersburg since their districts are way too specific and different from the general pattern I was working on. For the rest, I do not have any preference. I was trying to move geographically since it is more convenient - for instance, I found the materials on pre-1944 Leningrad Oblast, which are good enough for Novgorod and Pskov Oblasts as well, but it is not crucial. My plan was to do Pskov, then Leningrad, then to start Tver. May a bit in parallel of Pskov and Leningrad since there are a lot of towns and urban-type settlements in Leningrad Oblast, and it would be plain boring doing them for days without any break, but this is not essential. It took me a full year to complete Arkhangelsk, Vologda, and Novgorod Oblasts, and I do not expect that things would considerably speed up now. Each oblast would still cost me at least a couple of months, may be more.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; this is good to know. I'll keep Leningrad, Pskov, and Tver Oblasts in mind, and will plan to create the carcasses for those before starting anything else (but after finishing Kursk Oblast). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 16, 2012; 13:55 (UTC)

Could you verify that the described type of subdivision existed in real? (ru:Туземный_район) If yes, could you create a stab for it with the correct naming. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 07:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is definitely real. I need to check my library to see if I have enough material for a stub, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 22, 2012; 14:03 (UTC)

Спасибо :) --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As You see, Луостари, Luostari is a rural locality in Russia, but it has a Finnish name and means monastery in English and монастырь, monastyr in Russian.
So, e.g. Янисъярви, Jänisjärvi is a Finnish name (not "Yanisyarvi"); Имени Карла Либкнехта, Imeni Karla Liebknechta (not "Imeni Karla Libknekhta") has its German parts from Karl Liebknecht; Тольятти, Togliatti (not "Tolyatti") has named after Italian Palmiro Togliatti - and don't forget TogliattiAzot.
Also many, many other places in Russia have names, which are not Russian.
--WPK (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously said many times before, yes, there are many places in Russia the names of which originate in languages other than Russian. There are, however, no places in Russia which do not have a Russian name. Romanization (especially romanization of toponyms) deals with those Russian names and pays no regard to their origins. Once you start paying attention to the origins, it's no longer romanization but a combination of translation, synthesis, and original research.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2012; 13:36 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are many, many places in Russia which do not have a Russian name: Luostari is a Finnish name and means monastery in English and монастырь, monastyr in Russian, Jänisjärvi is a Finnish name and means hare lake in English and заячье озеро, zayachye ozero in Russian etc. etc.

--WPK (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me... "Luostari" is not the Russian name of the place, of course. But "Луостари" is. "Luostari" does not need to be romanized. But "Луостари" does. The place known as Jänisjärvi in Finnish is not called "Заячье Озеро" in Russian. It is called "Янисъярви"—that, and nothing else, is its Russian name. "Заячье озеро" is a translation of the Finnish word, but it is not the name of the place in Russian. For the purposes of romanization nobody ever cares what that name may mean in Finnish or through which language(s) it ended up in Russian; the only thing that's taken into consideration is how it is spelled in (spelled in, not translated to) Russian. What you are trying to show above has nothing to do with romanization, and once you understand that, a great number of your questions will answer themselves.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2012; 17:46 (UTC)

Thought you might find something more on this in Russian.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never know what kind of request to expect from you next :) Anyway, I tweaked the existing text a little and added a couple sentences/refs from Russian sources. The most important facts are already well covered, so there's not much to add without going extra deep. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2012; 23:45 (UTC)

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Yangcheon-gu			Yefim Karskiy
	Taldomsky District			Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
	Yagodninsky District			Programme for International Student Assessment
	Hamyang		Merge
	Sancheong			Aigun
	Gennady Nevelskoy			Russian Far East
	Ruzsky District			Ukase
	Dmitriyev (town)		Add sources
	Namhae			Progress, Amur Oblast
	Zavitinsk			Svechinsky District
	Sudzha			Chastoozersky District
	Federal cities of Russia		Wikify
	Klinsky District			List of current KHL team rosters
	Oboyan			Laroche-Valmont
	Bologovsky District			Keshan County
	Shakhovskoy District		Expand
	Autonomous okrugs of Russia			Udege people
	M60 highway (Russia)			Far Eastern Federal District
	Geochang			Negidals

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) 05:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]