Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russian federal subjects/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Russian Subdivisions Project

Federal districts are not subdivisions - they are merely aggregations of the subjects. The Constitution of Russia only defines 89 subjects, and federal districts are not among them. I believe they should be covered in a separate project (with this hierarchy: Russia->Russian Federal Districts->Russian Subdivisions->so on). I will, of course, be happy to hear your reasons for inclusion. Thanks.--Ezhiki 20:37, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Please do not confuse legal terms with layman terms: "subject" is "subject" is subject. If you want subjects, please name the project accordingly.

Subdivisions is a different matter. No matter what they do: group or unite, they still subdivide Russia and still have their administration.

By the way, the Russian counterpart for Subdivisions of Russia is called "Subjekty": ru:Список субъектов Российской Федерации.

Just the same, I might say that Russia is subdivided into "rayons", the rest is just unions of rayons.

AFAIK, there are also economal regions of Russia. They subdivide Russia as well. Hence the project under this name must speak about them as well.

So one of the outcomes of you project is realizing that "subdivision" is probably a poor and misleading translation of "sub'jekt".

Mikkalai 21:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

The name of the project was based off the name of the Subdivisions of Russia article, which deals with all kinds of subdivisions excluding the districts (rayons) and below. So, no, rayons will not be included in this project (but a lower level project should probably be established for them eventually).

I do agree that the project's name selection might not have been the best one. I was so used to look up information on krais, oblasts, etc in that article that I did not give it another thought when naming the project. If someone with adminin rights can rename it to Subjects^* of Russia (^*I'll be damned if I know how to translate subyekty better. Constituents? :))--Ezhiki 22:16, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

I suggest to use the name used in the translations of official Russian sites. After you figure this out, I can move, both this prj and the "guilty" article. Mikkalai 22:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Subjects of the Federation is so far the most common translation (which is expected, considering that this translation is word-to-word). Federal Cadaster Center (the most relevant government entity for this case) is using this wording. Federal subjects is also used, although it is far less common. Not surprisingly, the former convention is occurs more often on Russian websites, and the latter is used by foreign websites. Hence, I would suggest to use Federal Subjects, and rename the project as Federal Subjects of Russia. I, however, would like an independent opinion on this before the article is actually moved. There may be a better variant which I might have overlooked.--Ezhiki 14:54, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

OK I'm putting the renaming issue to Talk:Subdivisions of Russia, since the traffic here is still low. Mikkalai 17:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Two questions. 1. Where do you look up traffic information? 2. How long will this renaming issue stay up for vote? Thanks.--Ezhiki 18:01, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

1. I didn't mean website traffic, rather talk participation and number of participants. (2) Since, no one had any competitive proposals or objections right away, I'd suggest a week will be enough. Mikkalai 15:58, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good.--Ezhiki 16:04, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Some day everyone will know where to look for the maximum North to South distance in the dismal Ivanovo Oblast. And we'll have articles on Rivers of Lipetsk oblast, Mountains of Kalinigrad Oblast, Lakes of Yakutia and lists of every f**king village in Russia. Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, I say - keep the number of red links to the necessary minimum.

On the other hand, what SHOULD be included is the link to the List of subdivisions of Russia by area in the factsheet on the right. By the way, I like the way it's done with States of Mexico (see, e.g, Chiapas) - clear and concise.

Oh, and the single Autonomous Oblast looks real sad and lonely. Why not combine it with Autonomous Distircts in a boilerplate? -- apoivre 14:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

C'mon man, chill out. What is your problem with red links? Not that they take up any space now, do they? A red link gives potential contributors an idea on what is missing, is it that bad? Then, would it personally offend you if a N->S distance of Ivanovo Oblast is actually listed? The project template merely gives an idea of what information can be included; it does not mean that one would have to actually include blank lines with no information into the articles. And what was that about every village in Russia? What's wrong with that? Every US village is listed (Gray, Iowa, pop. 82, any takers?).

I always believed there were no villages in the US, only small towns :-) However, it is their Wikipedia so they might want to have every human settlement in every English-speaking country listed here. I somehow doubt anyone would ever need to see a complete list of villages of Lipetsk oblast - and if they do, they must have some special interest and (hopefully) will be able to find it without our help. On the other hand, dumping a lot of data nobody will ever want to look up will just make the relevant pages larger and slower to load for people who use modems/slow connection. Same goes for excessive markup, by the way, - and when you try to edit a page that is over 32K, the lower lines might get trunkated (I experienced this using Safari (web browser) on Mac OS X, don't know about other browsers/OS). - apoivre 20:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

While long and slow loading pages are can cause problems for people using obsolete and uncommon technologies, they are still not a good reason to cut on content. Articles can always be reformatted and optimized to load better. Subdividing an article into subsection, as it is proposed with this project, should alleviate the problem at least partially.--Ezhiki 15:19, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Articles on Mountains of Kalinigrad Oblast, Lakes of Yakutia, and others that you were so kind to list were proposed to be created only if there is enough information for such an article. If there is only one lake in an oblast, heck, it can be (and should be) listed in the Lakes subsection of the Geography section. There would be no need for a red link in such case.

The project just provides the structure and layout, is all. If someone actually cares enough to provide information on some remote village in Siberia, then it means it has some importance. Not that the article is going to be popular, but it will be there if someone needs it. Most of the existing articles are that way anyway.

I'm not against separate articles on villages, I'm against meaningless lists of villages on the relevant Oblast page (see above) -- apoivre 20:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

This I can agree with. I was modelling the template using similar projects for other countries. It may be a good idea to list every little village for, say, a French departament, but it would apparently be too long of a list for almost any Russian subdivision. It should still be possible to list them in a separate article, which would be linked from the main article on the subdivision.--Ezhiki 15:19, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

As for the autonomous oblast, it is listed separately because it is a distinct subdivision type (see Constitution of the RF or Federal Cadaster Center site). It is not the same as an autonomous district.

Could we just name it Autonomous districts and oblasts of Russia? - apoivre 20:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I have an idea on this, which I am going to try some time soon. Hopefully it will work better.--Ezhiki 15:19, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

No personal offense, Apoivre, but I, for one, would love to see constructive suggestions on this page, not flame and pointless critics. Why, for example, not try and re-do the autonomous districts/autonomous oblast message boxes to combine them together in such a way that they take less space, look less ugly, and still make clear that an autonomous district and an autonomous oblast fall into different subcategories? If you hate the layout, well, be my guest, make it better, it is, after all, just the first draft. Comments?--Ezhiki 15:02, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I had no time for constructive suggestions as I was busy doing the List of subdivisions of Russia by area. Now we can put a link to it in every article where a subjects area is mentioned: area so and so, Ranked nth largest. Probably should do the same by population using the 2002 census data. -- apoivre 20:34, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Here you go - List of subdivisions of Russia by population. Enjoy -- apoivre 02:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Apoivre, these two lists will come really handy.--Ezhiki 15:19, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Or could we just use a simpler box on the right? Something like this? (And the flag and coat of arms will only be used for the republics - they are all fake, after all, invented by some nerd in the Kremlin) I have never been good with tables, could you please fix the part with the map? -- apoivre 21:21, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I didn't find quite that many differences when looking at your info box, actually. Seems like you added a link to "Other republics/oblasts/etc... right under the map, removed borders information (but added a list of major cities), and removed a link to the national anthem.

Borders info is probably redundant for an info box (this can be moved to the Geography section), and major cities and towns (for example, top 10, maybe including smaller ones if they have historical significance) can also be listed in the Geography section so the table is not overloaded.

The National Anthem link would not apply to most of the subdivisions, so maybe we could leave it there? I can't think of any other subsection this link would fit in (except "Related articles"). As for the flag and coat of arms, even though they may not be of any historic significance, and most of them were probably just made up in bulk, they are still used as symbols, so there is a point of showing them.

Also, a capital is not really a technically correct term. Moscow is the only capital in Russia. Republics probably have capitals too (but I need to check on this). Oblasts, krais and such only have administrative centers, no matter how eager the inhabitants are to call them "capitals".

OKATO codes, to the best of my knowledge, are numbers assigned to the municipalities. I do not know if they include the numbers for republics/krais/oblasts... Federal Cadaster Center of Russia refers to these numbers as "cadaster numbers" (on the English version of their site), so this is the term I used. These numbers are the same as the ones that show on the car license plates.

And thank you for participating :) --Ezhiki 15:19, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Presidents, capitals, Bashkirs, Tatars...

Здорово Ёжики! Это хорошо, что будет статья про эври факен рашн виладж. Теперь давай поговорим вот о чём.

Не надо думать, что у меня бзик - я повторяюсь не просто так. Имена Башкирских шишек (да покажутся им их скори короткими) я странслитерировал по общим правилам транслитерации тюркских языков в западноевропейскую кодировку. Если чё - то можно понатыкать редиректов с разными вариантами имюн, чтобы кто-нибудь да попал. Башкирские названия озёр я тоже поменял - т.к. вообще среди местных они известны именно в такой транскрибции. Ну и добавил названия праздников.

зы. в республиках - столицы и президенты. административные центры во всём остальном. т. о. в России 22 столицы. И это - конституционно.

--Untifler 12:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I made some minor correction and moved the info around, but in general I agree that native spelling (and transliteration rules) take precedence over the Russian versions (which are often transliteration themselves).

I think, we should most English names by Google, not by nationalistic precedence. It's English Wikipedia, isn't it? Idea to use local names doesn't work when the place is populated by two different ethnic groups... Dr Bug  Volodymyr V. Medeiko 18:22, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We actually are trying to use English names all the time, and give information on Russian/local spelling only as a note. The problem, however, is with the names that do not have established name variants in English, in which case it should be decided which transliteration suits the situation better—Russian or local. If you see a transliterated name when you know for sure there is an English version—feel free to make corrections. Just add a note in the edit summary box.--Ëzhiki 18:46, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I just suppose that Google often knows the answer. Ok, no problem. Dr Bug  Volodymyr V. Medeiko 20:00, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem with Google is that it is often unfairly skewed towards one version over another, especially when a name is less common. This is when a lot of arguments take place.--Ëzhiki 20:04, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Of course I agree - Google shouldn't be used blindly - the search results should be analyzed. I just mean that I suppose that etymology shouldn't be taken in account. Local spelling may be more popular among natives, but spelling in more widely used language has a good chance to be used in English too... Ok, don't worry, I don't see any problem here, among participants of this WikiProject. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:31, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As for the presidents and capitals - that's my mistake. I elaborated a bit more on this on your talk page.--Ezhiki 17:36, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

uppercase names

From the history of the article Dagestan:

• 14:23, 1 Sep 2004 ChrisO m (Names in mixed case)
• 15:28, 1 Sep 2004 Ezhiki m (subject's name in the info box should be in caps and with no accent marks - please see the originating project's template for guidelines)

I for one don't see any reason for this, it seems really silly. Why shouldn't we use normal letters and instead uppercase everything needlessly? Surely the official names aren't prescribed to always be written uppercase? --Joy [shallot] 18:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nah, I have nothing against lowercase letters, but with one condition—whoever wishes to have the lowercase letters in infoboxes should go ahead and change them in all of the (already done) articles and in the template. If someone later wants to change them back to uppercase letters, that's all right too, as long as all of the instances are changed. I really don't care which case to use, as long as it is uniform across all of the articles. Does that sound fair? So, if you want to get rid of the upper case names, please review the project's status page and change the names in all of the articles that are done or are in progress.

As for the accents, there's been a discussion in the past that accent marks prevent the text from being properly indexed by the search engines. Since knowing where the accents are is still very useful despite the widespread deficiencies of the modern search engines, I use them in the introduction but not in the info box headers (the latter can then be properly indexed).--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:31, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Similar Wikiprojects

Articles on Russian towns and cities are pritty shoddy and haphazard. Even the Moscow page is a bit of a mess. How about some standardisation? Any takers? Seabhcan 22:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to join, but not before this project (on federal subjects) is at least three quarters done. You are more than welcome to contact me should you have any questions, however.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:12, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Names of the republics

Copied from User talk:Ezhiki#Moving articles

1. Adygeya was moved to Adygea.
   • Google search: Adygeya=43,800; Adygea=3,400
   • Britannica=Adygea
   • Encarta=Adygea
   • Columbia=Adygey Republic

   Consider conducting a poll regarding the name to be used as the encyclopedias do not seem to reflect the most common spelling.

   OK. --Cantus 22:20, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

1. Proposed to move Altai Republic to Altay.
   • Google search: Altai Republic=41,400; Altay Republic=708
   • Google search #2: Altai=155,000; Altay=73,700
   • Britannica: article on the republic is under "Altay"; article on the region is under "Altai Mountains"
   • Encarta: article on the republic is under "Altay"; article on the region is under "Altai Mountains"
   • Columbia: article on the republic in under "Altai Republic"; article on the region is under "Altai"

   "Altai" spelling is more common except in Britannica and Encarta, which stick with transliteration guidelines and use "Altay". If the article on "Altai Republic" is to be moved, it should be moved to "Altai", not to "Altay". "Altai", however, is currently an article on the Altai region/mountains, and it has a right to stay there under the same policy to use short names you are referring to. Moving "Altai Republic" to "Altay" would create a confusion between "Altay" and "Altai", even if clarifying links are placed in the articles, plus, this is a far less common spelling variant. Shortened name will also conflict with "Altai Krai", which can also be shortened to Altai. Either leave this as is, or consider conducting a poll.

   OK. --Cantus 22:20, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

1. Buryat Republic was moved to Buryatia.

   OK.

1. Proposed to move Komi Republic to Komi
   • Britannica=Komi
   • Encarta=Komi
   • Columbia=Komi Republic

   The word "Komi" has several meanings, as the Komi (disambiguation) article clearly shows. The word "Komi" itself is more strongly associated with the Komi people, not with the Komi Republic. Consider conducting a poll regarding the name. Meanwhile, I changed "Komi" to a redirect to the disambiguation page instead of the page about the republic.

   OK. --Cantus 22:20, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

1. Proposed to move Mariy El to Mari El.
   • Google search: Mariy El=2,810; Mari El=98,900
   • Britannica=Mari El
   • Encarta=Mari El
   • Columbia=Mari El

   Moved.

1. Moved Sakha Republic to Sakha.
   • Britannica=Sakha
   • Encarta=Sakha
   • Columbia=Sakha Republic

   OK.