Template talk:Infobox Russian city

Do we really need this template?

Do we really need this template? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. People will be always be trying to add infoboxes to articles on Russian cities, and this template gives them a tool that takes specifics of Russian cities/towns into consideration; something this abomination (example) or this over-generic box (example) fail to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did {{Infobox Settlement}} fail to do? —MJCdetroit 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Settlement does not provide means for quite a few characheristics which are important to a Russian city (not enough fields for official languages, no auto-generated map for cases when a custom map is unavailable, no city day, no place for administrative/municipal jurisdiction status specific to Russia, no field for charter, legislative body etc.). Its terminology does not comply with the terminology used for the Russian cities. Also, in its attempt to be a universal template for all occasions it has so many redundant parameters (for Russian cities, that is), that it became easier to write a Russian-specific template rather than copyedit the existing mess (trust me, I tried, and I had a hell of a time considering that I knew what was incorrect and/or missing). Most of the folks using Infobox Settlement, even with the best of intentions, could not figure out what applies to Russian cities and what does not apply, resulting in misleading, uninformative, and factually incorrect infoboxes. Given that infoboxes should contain summary information that's sufficient to fulfill the basic reference needs of casual readers at a glance, utilizing overly-generic infoboxes compromized the whole articles. That is dangerous and irresponsible, hence a new template which leaves much less room for errors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is better to have a uniformed look throughout Wiki and I have replaced many nation-specific city infoboxes with Infobox Settlement. Mostly because they were terrible like the abomination mentioned above. —MJCdetroit 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are only terrible because no one cared to improve them either way (by making a decent nation-specific template or by trying to clean up existing uniform one), aren't they? If a uniform box works for other places, there surely is no need to try and impose a custom-made one on them. As far as Russian cities are concerned, however, the generic boxes do not work for them because there are so many specifics peculiar to Russia. Adding such specifics to what is supposed to be a uniform infobox would defeat the purpose of a uniform infobox and make it even more confusing than it already is, but ommiting them altogether does not serve readers right either. The bottom line: I, having seen what the end result is, am very much against using {{Infobox Settlement}} for Russian cities, but am not at all concerned about using it for other nations, especially if it causes no problems there. The ultimate decision should be made by the people who know the subject, not by the people who create tools. Incidentally, this whole infobox standardization movement looks very much like numerous attempts to standardize "subdivisions" terminology across Wikipedia—all of those attempts failed dismally because despite obvious similarities there are just too many region-specific details calling for exceptions. Standadization is great, but only when it does not stand in the way of accuracy and convenience of both editors and readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elevation

Elevation should probably be added. Something like Elevation_m = —MJCdetroit 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. I've seen it in some other infoboxes, but where do the elevation data come from? I also imagine some of the larger cities wouldn't have uniform elevation; how is that handled?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} set up to handle elevation in feet, meters, and both. An editor can enter a single value in feet and it will be automatically converted to meters and vice-versa. However, if the elevation is a range then the ranges need to be entered into both elevation_m and elevation_ft to override the #expr.

I am not sure where to get the data for Russian cities from. —MJCdetroit 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the reason why I didn't implement elevation in this template—I don't know any reliable sources. Should the situation change in future, I trust it won't be too difficult to add a new field. As for the auto-conversion—that's a quite useful feature. This template's only fields which require conversion are the area and the population density, but I see you already started implementing the auto-conversion. If there is anything here I can help with, don't hesitate to let me know. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many weather related sites give the elevation.
wunderground
weatherbase

Not as good but there is also world-airport codes.com

Just a thought —MJCdetroit 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know. These sources don't look particularly reliable to me somehow (I'm referring to the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" of WP:RS). I'd rather have something more official—not necessarily from the government, but at least from an academic institution of some sort, and preferrably from a Russian one. The sources you provided could be used as a side tool, but hardly as a primary reference; for Omsk, for example, the wunderground source gives the elevation of 404 ft[1], the weatherbase—403 ft[2], and the world-airport-codes—308 ft[3]. Whether the first two are averages or values specific to certain locations (the third one is specifically the runway elevation, which, however, is still within the city), there is no way to find out. I just wouldn't be comfortable using any of these in an encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it was just a thought, as I too would rather have a more official source (like the USGS for the USA). Keep up the good work. Regards, MJCdetroit 19:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian language Wikipedia has elevation for cities, so there is no reason why the English language Wikipedia cannot have it. It's easy enough to copy over the data from the Russian language Wikipedia, but the infobox needs a field for it. M Carling 16:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2002 census?

Why is it necessary to mention the Census in the Template? For many localities, newer data is available, while 2002 data is unavailable. It would rather be better to include the possibility to specify the year to which the population figure refers, in the Template as a separate line. Ivan Volodin (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is supposed to present consistent data to our readers, across all articles it is used in. Census data are the only kind of data which are obtained using the same methodology all over the country, and are given for roughly the same date. Estimates do not possess that quality. Newer population figures can (and should be) mentioned in the article's body, but presenting them in the infobox would make it impossible to competently compare the population figures of different cities (note that only the Census data can make a list like this useable and meaningful; this list is also linked to from the infobox and is used to determine the rankings).

Another possibility, of course, is to include both the Census numbers and whatever newer numbers available, but I'm afraid that will only make this already bloated infobox even longer. In any case, since I was planning to have this infobox re-designed soon anyway, this solution is something I'd be willing to try, to see how it turns out. So, while you are at it, if you have any other ideas regarding improving this infobox, I'll be more than happy to hear them out. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

I just wonder why it is not possible to remove the words "as of 2002 Census". It would not prevent anyone from using the Census data but will allow for more flexibility. Compare with Template:French commune. Otherwise, the current system does not allow to have any population information other that the 2002 one. Ivan Volodin (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intent of the infobox was to show the population figures which would be directly comparable from one city to another (you can't really compare estimates for two different cities, even if they are for the same year). The most recent such figures are the 2002 Census data, so it made sense to hard-code and automatically provide a reference for it (2002 Census data are available for each and every city/town, so missing data is never a problem). No fields were provided for any types of estimates in order to keep the height of the infobox within reasonable limits. Future usage is of little concern as well, as it is always possible to add the 2010 Census field, fill it with data as they become available, and then completely phase out the 2002 field.

The approach the {{French commune}} template takes is exactly an example of how things should not be done—the article about Bordeaux, for example, shows the 2008 estimate, yet for Strasbourg the data are from 2006 (and neither one is referenced properly, by the way). If one wanted to compare the two, instead of taking a quick look at the infoboxes (which is their primary reason—to provide basic facts in condensed form), they would have to actually check the Census list. While it is but one click away, the way of accessing it is far from obvious, especially for newbie Wikipedia readers. Such approach is confusing, inconvenient, and statistically faulty, which is why it should be avoided at all costs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:56, January 5, 2009 (UTC)

I fully share the idea of having two fields: 2002 census and the latest available estimate. And let me note that the "wrong" French approach is the one used throughout Wikipedia: {{Infobox German Location}}, {{Infobox CityIT}}, {{Spanish city}} and in fact {{Infobox Settlement}}. I am not against the 2002 data, but www.perepis2002.ru is not available any more, and it is certainly better to have some population figure in the infobox than to have none. Ivan Volodin (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perepis2002.ru seems to be available just fine (example), it's just the main page that's down. They used to have similar problems in the past; I wonder if something broke again. At any rate, even if the Census website were completely down, it does not mean the data are automatically no longer any good. Plenty of population estimates cannot be referenced to anything available online either, yet it is still OK to use them.

Well, all I can see in the page that you are referring to is "Подождите, идет загрузка страницы...", and the page seems not to be downloading any further. Of course, this does not mean that the data is no longer good, but simply there is no access to any data. It's absurd to deprive the infobox of any population data for this reason. Ivan Volodin (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It worked fine for me just this morning. Are you using IE? I don't believe the page works properly in other browsers (but I may be wrong).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:56, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

As for the approach used "throughout Wikipedia", just because one person made a bad decision at one time and others copied it left and right without giving it much thought does not mean we have to do the same. If things can be done better, why not do them better? The very {{Infobox Settlement}} provides a field for referencing population information, yet that field is all too often completely ignored. Why copy that practice when we can use consistent figures and hard-code the reference footnote?

I'm afraid you underestimate the thinking capabilities of Wikipedia users. Ivan Volodin (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having edited Wikipedia for almost five years, I respectfully disagree with this assessment. There are all kinds of idiots out there; luckily, many of them never actively edit. As for bad practices, this definitely is one. To require readers to needlessly do extra work just isn't cool, especially when it can so easily be avoided. Anyhoo, I seem to start going in circles on this point, so I guess we can safely close it, especially after having added a new field.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:56, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding having two fields, as I said before, I'll give it a try when re-designing this template. Feel free to add it now if you don't want to wait (just make sure it is suppressed when empty). But know this—if anyone complains about this template being way too long ever again, I'm just going to forward their complaint to you :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:45, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

Look now. Ok? Ivan Volodin (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be working fine, thanks. Let's see how it goes from here.

By the way, I noticed you added this infobox to articles such as Serebryanye Prudy. The infobox was intended for use solely in the articles about cities/towns (hence its name), not about urban-type settlements or rural localities. 99% of articles about urban-type settlements or rural localities are not long enough to support an infobox this long, that's the main concern. I'll try to dig up a link to a prior discussion regarding this for you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:56, January 6, 2009 (UTC)

Fed subject maps

Hi, I've been adding the infobox to a number of articles on towns and cities in the far east - I've noticed that some subjects have a map generated automatically, but not all. I'd add them, but I don't know how to.

Also, some of the regional maps are too large (eg Primorsky Krai) and the Sakhalin one is far too large, doesn't actually show the whole oblast (ie it doesn't have the Kurils) and the coordinates aren't placing accurately.

I'm happy to help with this if someone gives me instructions on how to tinker with the maps.

Thanks AaronRichard (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Aaron! First of all, thanks a bunch for taking on this menial task—much appreciated. Regarding the maps, they only show up automatically when there is a locator map available for a federal subject (Dagestan, for example, has a map, while the Sakha Republic does not). When no locator map is available (and you can find a list of existing maps at Category:Russia location map templates), the infobox either shows the dot on an autogenerated map of Russia (as in Khabarovsk), or shows the map (manually) supplied via the LocatorMap parameter (as in Yakutsk).

Regarding the maps being too large in some cases, I've noticed that as well. That's not exactly easy to fix, but I was going to attempt fixing it in the next iteration of this infobox (which will fix other bugs as well and become more like {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}}). The culprit here is the fact that the automap is formatted to be 190 pixels wide (as to not exceed the width of the infobox itself). This works fine in many cases, but for tall maps (such as the one for Sakhalin Oblast) it means that it does not scale well vertically. Restricting the height along with the width, on the other hand, will fix the problem with tall maps, but may also distort the ratios of other maps. All in all, unless you have a solution ready to implement right away, I'm going to tinker with this infobox trying some ideas I have and will hopefully fix this... eventually.

As for the coordinates not placing accurately, that would be the problem with individual locator maps, not with this infobox. If you can show some examples of placement errors, I can track the person responsible for the map in question and ~~beat the snot out of them~~ politely ask them what the problem is and if it can be fixed. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:20, January 29, 2009 (UTC)