Jump to content

Talk:Troitsk, Moscow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On July 1, 2012 Troitsk was transferred to the city of Moscow and became a part of Troitsky Administrative Okrug.[1][7]

[edit]

What this means: "On July 1, 2012 Troitsk was transferred to the city of Moscow and became a part of Troitsky Administrative Okrug.[1][7]" ?
My understanding that the town and its dwellers were moved to other part of Moscow area, something 2 km close to Moscow( or further)
"became a part of Troitsky Administrative Okrug"- what means OKRUG and where Troitsky Administrative Okrug?

--zas2000 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lebedev institute is in Troitsk. Headquaters of this Institute is placed at Leninsky avenue ( Moscow Akademichesky District). Read the home page of this Institute and you will find information on Troistsk part of the Institute. see[1]

В Троицке располагаются 10 научно-исследовательских институтов: ФГУП «ГНЦ РФ Троицкий институт инновационных и термоядерных исследований», Центр геологоэлектромагнитных исследований РАН, Институт спектроскопии РАН, Институт земного магнетизма, ионосферы и распространения радиоволн имени Н.В. Пушкова РАН (ИЗМИРАН), Институт физики высоких давлений РАН, филиал Института ядерных исследований РАН, Отделение перспективных лазерных технологий Института проблем лазерных и информационных технологий РАН, филиал ФИАН им. П.Н.Лебедева, Центр физического приборостроения института общей физики им. А.М.Прохорова РАН, ФГУ «Технологический институт сверхтвердых и новых углеродных материалов» (ФГУ ТИСНУМ).


--zas2000 (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the first point, you are wrong. On the second point, the Lebedev Institute is locate in Moscow, Leninsky Avenue 53, which I know pretty well since there was an extended period of my life when I was visiting it at least once per week. Last time, I was there in June, and the Lebedev Institute is still in Moscow. There is indeed a small part of the institute which is in Troitsk (I believe they do not even have their own campus), but saying that the Lebedev Instite is in Troitsk is grossly incorrect.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And please do not use sockpuppets.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Ymblanter- I would like to have your comments on:
  • information about Troitsk's science center which I've gave you earlier.

I've cited above the the official Troitsk administration page [2] in which very easily you can find next:
1. В Троицке располагаются 10 научно-исследовательских институтов: ФГУП «ГНЦ РФ Троицкий институт инновационных и термоядерных исследований», Центр геологоэлектромагнитных исследований РАН, Институт спектроскопии РАН, Институт земного магнетизма, ионосферы и распространения радиоволн имени Н.В. Пушкова РАН (ИЗМИРАН), Институт физики высоких давлений РАН, филиал Института ядерных исследований РАН, Отделение перспективных лазерных технологий Института проблем лазерных и информационных технологий РАН, филиал ФИАН им. П.Н.Лебедева, Центр физического приборостроения института общей физики им. А.М.Прохорова РАН, ФГУ «Технологический институт сверхтвердых и новых углеродных материалов» (ФГУ ТИСНУМ).
2. additionaly, you may find similar information from the Lebedev Institute home page:
Among Lebedev Institute branches is Special Design Bureau (Troitsk, Moscow Region) [3]
3. and finally, at Russian Wikipage Троицк (Москва) you may find that Lebedev Insitute has 1000 employees in Troisk branch.


to be Continued

Add Special Design Bureau, and I would be fine. But you are deliberately adding false information. The Lebedev Institute is not in Troitsk.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why you did not do this correction before?

--zas2000 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I do it? This is a minor research institute, really nothing in comparison to the main ones (like ISAN or IFVD, or the reactor), if someone wants to add all kindergardens for example it would be difficult to me to object, but I do not see why I should help.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has 1000 employees (1/36 - of city population) how many kindergarderns has the same number of workers?

How many employees have other research institutes in Troitsk?--zas2000 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2013 (UT


to be Continued

[edit]

This phrase is not very accurate: On July 1, 2012 Troitsk was transferred to the city of Moscow and became a part of the newly established Troitsky Administrative Okrug. The usage of the word "transfer" needs, as rule, the indication from something (one) to something (one), see examples in [1]. In the above phrase the city justification was transferred. Other problem - what is OKRUG. There is no this kind of word in English.

This why suggest to use something like: From July 1, 2012 Troitsk is part of the Moscow city and has administrative status as Troitsky Administrative Okrug of the Moscow metro area

All drawbacks of the original phrase are fixed here --zas2000 (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, sorry, but what is it even supposed to mean, "justification was transferred" (feel free to repeat it in Russian, because in English it makes no sense)? The word "transfer", on the other hand, is right on the money here—a territory, which was previously a part of Moscow Oblast, was transferred to the federal city of Moscow; hence, any and all inhabited localities on that territory were transferred as well. If you really want to be anal about this, reword the sentence to match the wording in the Agreement between Moscow and Moscow Oblast and use something like "the borders were changed to include Troitsk within the territorial limits of the federal city of Moscow", but that's effectively saying the same thing as "transferred", only in many more words.
Regarding the word "okrug", please consult a dictionary; something like the OED would do. It's a perfectly good loanword, on par with "oblast" and "krai".
Finally, the problem with your suggested revision is two-fold. First, Troitsk did not become a part of the "Moscow city", it became a part of the federal city of Moscow (a federal subject of Russia). The borders of Moscow proper remain unchanged. The term "metro area" is a poor choice in this context as well—it simply does not work in the context of the administrative-territorial divisions. The Agreement makes no mention of "metro area", nor do any of the concomitant laws. The term itself is rather vague, uninformative, and useless without a clarification. Makes sense?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2013; 17:56 (UTC)
About "OKRUG". I recommend for you on "Okrug" to try find out this word in Webster dictionary [2]. This dictionary does not have this word. If you would like to English-based reader to force looking into the dictionary instead of getting the information from this special page - go ahead, I don't think they will like it. By the way, you may force them to study Russian as well. This will solve all problem forever. For me this is not polite attitude to readers.

"justification was transferred" this is my typo. Here should be "Jurisdiction was transferred"

The word "metro" is commonly used of 300 million English speaking people of US, so this word is more comfortable for them then unknown "Okrug".

I am repeating - the city can not be transfer. The city is still in the same geographical place on Earth. You may transfer the jurisdiction of the city administration. --zas2000 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying; makes a little more sense that way, even though it still doesn't sound quite right in this context. "The town was transferred to SomeDivision", however, is a common shorthand expression for saying that jurisdiction changed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. And it's pretty darn obvious that we are not talking about the town being physically moved! On "metro area", while it's a perfectly good term in general, in this case we are describing the change of legal status, so intentionally using vague terminology is not really helping anyone. That, and "metro area" is not even synonymous with "administrative okrug"—you are using a more common word, but it does not mean the same thing, which is a no-go. As for the "okrug", it is listed in the OED, and that's good enough. I'll take their judgement over yours (or any other Wikipedian's, for that matter) any day :) Finally, there was another problem with your proposed wording ("Troitsk... has administrative status as Troitsky Administrative Okrug"). Its administrative status is actually that of a settlement (поселение", which, together with several other settlements, constitute the administrative okrug. Your statement is simply factually incorrect.
By the by, I'm not saying that the existing wording cannot be improved. I am, however, saying, that the version you proposed is worse than the original. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2013; 21:20 (UTC)
Could you give me, please, references on this idiom "The town was transferred to....."

... And it's pretty darn obvious that we are not talking about the town being physically moved! This is obviously for you, but not for me. I am still thinking you physically moved city. The encyclopedic text should be accurate and sharp.

I believe Webster dictionary. The best way to give as people usually do in WIKI put the Russian word in brackets District(Okrug)--zas2000 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC) --zas2000 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Attached is the example of the usage "transfer" [3]

If anyone does not like my suggestion feel free to return the last version of the sentence. I think that dwellers of the city do not understand in detail a city status--zas2000 (talk) 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ëzhiki will return on Monday, but he speaks English, and you do not, and this would be a good idea to stop reverting and wait until he responds.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While an absence of a word from all English dictionaries is usually a good indication that the word isn't used in English, an absence of a word from just one dictionary indicates only that the dictionary being used is not as complete as other dictionaries :) There is nothing wrong with Merriam-Webster, but it's just not as complete as the OED.
On the usage of the word "transfer", I am getting a surreal vibe that you believe that a word can only mean one thing and nothing else. Nothing is further from the truth. I also don't quite understand why you can't just plug something like "town was transferred to" into the Google Books search field yourself and then study the results, which show a variety of usage. In my case, the second result contains "Barking Town was transferred to the Urban District of East Ham" (used in a document produced by the British House of Commons); a more modern example from a 2000 book uses "At the end of October 1939 when the town was transferred to Lithuania..." Plenty of other examples can easily be found. Note also that a transfer of jurisdiction is a fairly routine event, unlike movement of towns from one physical place to another. Indeed, when a place is actually moved from one location to another, a great deal of detail is usually included to describe such an unusual event! At any rate, a particularly confused reader (perhaps one with a mediocre command of the English language) always has the option of checking the sources used to reference the information; verifying information is what sources are for.
Finally, as far as explanations of unfamiliar terms go, this is why we have wikilinks. There is no need to clutter the text with parenthetical explanations for every term when one can simply link to it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 22, 2013; 14:01 (UTC)
Dear Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky), you've found a good example of the word "transferred" usage. Indeed, more often this word is used w/o explanation what this word carries. I think, because in many case no need in this due to obvious clearness of the situation. I can give some examples where the "transferred" requires additional followed explanation:

Soviet troops occupied the city, and it was transferred to Lithuania, which in 1940 was incorporated into the USSR http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Vilnius

The Lithuanian authorities entered Vilnius shortly afterwards and the capital of Lithuania started to be gradually transferred there from Kaunas. http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/History_of_Vilnius

In only a few days, Moscow handed Lithuania control of its own borders and customs posts, agreed to transfer Soviet-owned plants to Lithuanian jurisdiction and even promised to start negotiations on pulling the Red Army out of the Baltic state.http://articles.latimes.com/1991-08-31/news/mn-1236_1_soviet-union

As was indicated earlier, not all of the industry of the Kaliningrad Oblast has been transferred to Vilnius' jurisdiction, but only plants of certain industries.http://www.lituanus.org/1963/63_3_03.htm

At the end - I agree to keep your version, but, in reality, I prefer to give some details on "the transferring". Also, I suggest to use "District" instead OKRUG, something like District (Okrug [4])

I suggest to close the discussion on these points

  1. ^ http://www.admtroitsk.ru/index.aspx?menuid=101&submenuid=1231
  2. ^ http://www.admtroitsk.ru/index.aspx?menuid=101&submenuid=1231
  3. ^ http://www.lebedev.ru/en/structure/?id_level=26
  4. ^ http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/130944?redirectedFrom=Okrug#eid
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Troitsk, Moscow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Troitsk,_Moscow&oldid=1205766763"