Happy new year! (or, maybe I should wait for January 7 and January 14?) Hope you had a good holiday. Can I ask a favour? I'm struggling with the English translation of User:Buckshot06/3rd Guards Motor Rifle Division. The Russian-language version at the Ru-wiki is not easy to translate simply using Google Translate. Would you mind taking a look at the text sections and maybe doing some fixes? I would be ever so grateful. Best wishes and happy new year again! Cheers Buckshot06(talk)08:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy new year to you too (and I wish I could continue my holidays till January 14...)! I'll take a look at this some time later this week, if you don't mind. Are you working with the verbatim ru-wiki version, or is your version a mix? Just want to clarify how much fixing I should be doing :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:37, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ezhiki! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Do you think we should always place the chapters in articles of Russian federal subjects in this order? I think a standard order would be nice, but I don't know if chapter order in this guideline is well thought-out. Offliner (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't a bad idea at the time, but Wikipedia grew much since then, and even this suggested structure is not applied consistently. If you have a better structure in mind, by all means make a suggestion (just not on the WPRFS, which is dead). While I do have some preferences of my own as to the sections order, I have nothing against a well thought out overhaul. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
I think that order is just fine. I would maybe put "economy" before "history" since I think that is more important. The only other problem is "tourism." Obviously, information about the tourism industry needs to go to "economy", but some of the tourism chapters contain material that really doesn't belong to "economy" (such as sights, etc.) Perhaps the best solution would be to put most of the tourism info into economy, but if the article has extensive info about sights and "travel guide" -kind of material, then it should be placed in a separate chapter called "sights" or "travel." Offliner (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly whether the Economy is more important than History, but I still lean towards listing History first. We are, after all, an encyclopedia, and not an economic digest. We are supposed to narrate things more or less in order—it makes sense to start with what/where something is (lede and Geography), followed by how it came to be (History), and then follow with how that something is doing now (including the Economy).
Merging Tourism with Economy, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. The economic aspect of tourism belongs in Economy anyway, and sights and travel usually don't belong at all (since Wikipedia is not a travel guide). Plus, there are not that many sights that warrant being mentioned in articles about the federal subjects; however, if extensive info is included, it can safely be transferred to the article about the corresponding city/town. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:27, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Whether economy or history comes first is not a big deal for me. I guess in most other articles history would come first, so we can use that order. On second thought, there doesn't seem to be much non-economic tourism info in the federal subjects articles at all, so we may just as well put everything in the economy section. But this problem can exist in other area articles such as cities. It would be nice to have a standard structure for those articles as well. For example, very little of this would belong into the economy chapter. Offliner (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wouldn't call mixing sports, sights, and recreation all in one section the best approach :) Sports (at least in the city-level articles) can easily be a section on its own; Recreation (the way it currently is) needs to be cleaned up (shopping centers? bars? do we care?) with the remains (parks & Ferris wheel) moved to Tourism; and Tourism could become a well-defined section on its own. Sounds to me that we need a recommendation for the structure of the city/town articles much more than we need one for the federal subjects... WP:USCITY and WP:UKCITIES actually have very thorough guidelines as to the city articles structure; perhaps we could borrow much of it for our purposes?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:48, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we need a guideline about cities. I think we could copy much of WP:USCITY. Only the economy/infrastructure division seems problematic. Shouldn't we move the federal subjects guideline to WP:RUSSIA (with the tourism modification), because no one will find it from the abandoned wikiproject? I will probably rework Noyabrsk structure in the near future. Offliner (talk) 09:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just because a project is dead doesn't mean nothing there is salvageable :) Moving that guideline to WP:RUSSIA makes perfect sense. Perhaps it would be also prudent to establish a broad geography taskforce? Then the guidelines could be moved there, and the new guidelines could be placed there as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:10, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
thanks for your researches concerning Europe's coldest place. You removed the interwikis because the cold place layed in Sverdlovsk oblast. I think that is not correct, as the coords provided by the reference at ASU point to a place very much near the village in Komi republic. Could it be that you accidentally mixded the lats and longs? These new coords then point to a place s-e of Yekaterinburg in Sverdlovs oblast. Concerning the different names of the village and the river: User:SibFreak in de.wp has done some research and found this: hier: "Называют местные в основном ЩУгор, а не ЩугОр или ЩУгер." (quote from the article disc), and even in ru.wp there are two different articels for the (it seems) same river with two different spellings: ЩУгер and Щугор, the later can also be found here: БСЭ. It seems, that there is also the spelling Щугырь used - what a mess.
Could you please check whether both of these rivers are only one with two different spellings?
I will be out for some beer now, but as tomorrow is a holiday in S-Germany, I will try to research something more myself. Greetings and enjoy x-mas! --Pommesgabel (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it all was confusing enough without me screwing things up even further by mixing up the lats and the longs! You are right, the en-wiki article is supposed to be about the village in the Komi Republic. I have corrected it accordingly and restored the de: link. The official name of the place is "Ust-Shchuger", as per the source I cited in the article. I also have a map of the Komi Republic that uses that spelling, as well as "Shchuger" for the same river that is spelled "Shchugor" in the GSE (which means that ru-wiki should merge the two articles you mentioned).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:09, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
No problem, exactly the same happened to me, when I first c&p'ed the coords to google maps (the order is N-S/W-E there). The article is fine now, but as on the talk so. asked again about the spelling, maybe the alternate spelling should be mentioned. The German article has been pimped by SibFreak and is now pretty nice to read. Btw, wikimapia states that the village has 37 inhabitants, poor lads in the cold ;-) Thanks for the help and enjoy the holidays! --Pommesgabel (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you. I actually prodded the article at first, because the original author placed this locality in Krasnoyarsk Krai (a strange place for a European temperature record :)) and I screwed up with the coords and "moved" it to Sverdlovsk Oblast. Add to that the spelling confusion... anyway, it should be in a fairly good shape now. I've also replied to the spelling concern on the talk page; if you have anything else to add there, please do. Thanks again, and happy post-holiday bliss to you!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:57, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for the delay I have been away for a few days. I've started them although I dropped adding the admin capital as it was not seem to be good translation. Better if you add this. I will Wikiproject Russia tag them later and upload maps to commons for use. For next region can you add the stub tag in ready sandbox for copying. RegardsStarzynka (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I most certainly have enough on my to-do list to keep me occupied while you are away :) No problem with filling the administrative centers in either. As for the stub tags, I actually was deliberately removing them. What you create are, of course, definitely stubs, but after I am done with them they usually have enough to qualify for a Start-level assessment, so I'd be removing a stub tag anyway. Please let me know if you think I'm too optimistic about this, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I don't celebrate Xmas, but the New Year's was great! :) Best wishes to you in 2010 as well. As for Olonets, not a problem; will fix. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:24, January 12, 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Ezhiki! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system.
The list of the deputies is available on the Legislative Chamber's website (there is a row of alphabetical links at the bottom of that page). I could romanize their names for you no problem, but they are all given in Russian, and should probably be romanized from Uzbek (which I, of course, don't know). If there's anyone available at WP:Central Asia, I think they would be able to take care of this task much better than me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:28, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
There is no discrepancy. The Russian articles deal primarily with the municipal divisions and tend to forget about the administrative ones, while ours deal mostly with the administrative divisions and tend to forget about the municipal ones. In Chukotka AO, there are six municipal districts (shown on the map you added) and eight administrative districts (I don't believe we have a map for those).
I have no problem with the article describing both municipal and administrative units (like this one does), but adding a map showing six municipal districts (without even mentioning they are municipal) to the article that otherwise describes eight is going to be quite confusing to readers, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, great; I must have missed that one. I have nothing against adding that one and yes, the plan is to add municipal divisions eventually to all the articles in this series. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:44, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, unfinished. Anyway, there is only one "presidintial what" in the article: the decree: wrong one. Also, NC needs updating since it is not in a different F-district. - Altenmann >t17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the decree is the right one. The NCFD was created by an amendment to that decree. The amendment is supposed to show up in the ref as well, which it will as soon as I find out what its number and title are (kremlin.ru only re-printed the body, but I need to know at least the number in order for the reference to render properly). I'm checking with consultant.ru (and kremlin.ru's documents section) daily, but they don't have that information just yet. As soon as it's available, I'll update the refs.
As for North Caucasus, I'll update it to mention both federal districts. There are probably several other articles that need updating; if you happen to think of one and can't edit it yourself, please let me know. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:22, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Done. There's still some cleanup left that needs to be done (redirects, templates, incoming links, etc.).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Maybe you would be interested in recent edits of WPK (talk·contribs), who massively moved all Republic of Karelia articles to "original" Finnish names totally ignoring WP:RUS and basically their todays location in Russia. - Darwinek (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up, Darwinek. I'll move the articles back to the guidelines-compliant names. I wish new users had humility to ask "why" before doing something on a massive scale. Sigh...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:17, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe You don't quite understand. Of course, the places locate in Russia, nobody denies that. However, they have Finnish names, e.g. Lake Höyhenjärvi comes from Finnish meaning Lake Plume/Пероозеро , Lake Jänisjärvi means Lake Hare/Заяцозеро, Lahdenpohja means Bottom of Sound/Бухтинское дно, Leipäsuo means Bread Swamp/Хлебние болото.
As You notice, Хеюхенъярви, Янисъярви, Лахденпохья, Лейпясуо etc. are truly not Russian, but transliterated Finnish names.
In addition to Finnish h changed to Russian х (and back to "kh"), also because there is not a letter ä in the Russian language, it has to been transliterated like Tolvajärvi > Толваярви > "Tolvayarvi" and perhaps the most funny case: Ägläjärvi > Ягляярви > "Yaglyayarvi" - or is someone really ready to change the name of Battle of Tolvajärvi/Битва под Толваярви to "Battle of Tolvayarvi/Vitva pod Tolvayarvi"?
I like to highlight, that those names will be not compare to the names, which were changed mostly in the Karelian Isthmus in 1940's, like Antrea/Антреа to Kamennogorsk (at the third time;), Koivisto/Койвисто to Primorsk, Terijoki/Териоки to Zelenogorsk etc.
Dear WPK, we understand just fine. What I was trying to tell you (and perhaps not very clearly) is that this precise issue has already been discussed in the past, and all the points you raise here have already been raised. More than once, as a matter of fact. Here are the main points out of those discussions:
The fact that the places have Finnish names is irrelevant, because the places are located in Russia and the article about those places are written in the English Wikipedia. These same places probably also have Swedish, French, and Esperanto names—using those is just as unacceptable in the English wiki.
English Wikipedia's policy is to use English names, whenever it is possible. Since these places do not have clearly established English names, other guidelines are to be used.
For Russian localities, such a guideline is WP:RUS, which prescribes using a BGN/PCGN-based romanization, as that romanization system is what most texts written in English use.
Finnish names are, of course, to be mentioned as historical, but the articles themselves are to be placed under the titles which are used in English. Imposing the use of Finnish names of Russian places in Karelia in the English Wikipedia simply makes no sense. Let me emphasize this once more, because it's that important—this is not the Finnish Wikipedia, this is the English Wikipedia. For places in Russia which have no conventional English names, their romanized Russian names are used (even if those names are just a bastardization of the names in Finnish/Karelian). For places in Finland which have no conventional English names, their Finnish names are used. For places in Congo that have no conventional English names, their French names are used... and so on and so forth.
Please note that no major English-language atlases would use Finnish names, and even the academic works would only use them in the context of historical events (i.e., when the places in question were a part of Finland).
Articles such as Battle of Tolvajärvi should not, of course, be renamed, as the names they used are correct in the historical context. This is pretty much the same situation as with the Gdańsk/Danzig case (note that the main article is located at Gdańsk, while there are still plenty of articles dealing with history that use "Danzig").
The romanization, which You mentioned, is from Russian language to English. However, Finnish and English use the same Latin letters! For example, Finland's capital is Helsinki and when You transliterate it to Russian, it is Хельсинки, but when "romanize" back to Latin letters, now English, it is "Khelsinki"! Further, how can You separate Lahdenpohja and "Lakhdenpokhya", because they both is written to Russian Лахденпохья?. Can You at least admit, that kind "romanization" is odd?
Umm, no, I can't admit that. "Helsinki" is an established name of the city, that's why it's used (not to mention that since it's in Finland, it makes no sense whatsoever to romanize it from Russian). Those Finnish cities that don't have established names are located in the English wiki under their Finnish names, because the alphabet is (more or less) the same and there is no need for romanization. "Лахденпохья" does not have an established English name either, and neither do a great number of other places in Russia, which is why the United States Board on Geographic Names (BGN) and the Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use (PCGN) developed a romanization system that allows to produce a standard English name from any Russian name. WP:RUS is based on just that system, as it is what the English speakers expect. In other words, our readers do not expect to see Finnish names for Russian places because some of those places happened to have Finnish names in the past; they expect to see the romanization of the official Russian name, and if that official name happens to be based on Finnish, that doesn't matter one bit.
As a side note, check out this discussion. In the Update section, I outlined the practices of high-quality English-language atlases. You will see that not a single one uses Finnish names; they all use romanization. Wikipedia's practices are supposed to mirror real-life usage, and that's exactly what WP:RUS is documenting.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:37, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Your point is so, that because e.g. Lahdenpohja/Лахденпохья belonged to Finland - Finnish-speaking and Latin-alphabetical country - until Moscow Peace Treaty 1940, it was Lahdenpohja, but after that belonging to Soviet Union an now Russia - Russian-speaking and Cyrillic-alphapetical countries - it should be Lakhdenpokhya, just in English (not in Finnish)? That is then, regardless that Soviet and later Russian authorities don't have changed the names of former Finnish places in Soviet/Russian Karelia, like mostly places in Karelian Isthmus 1948?
It's not my point; it's what the guidelines say (I do agree, however). All in all, the point is correct. In an article that mentions the place before 1940, you would use the (piped or redirected) "Lahdenpohja" spelling, and in an article that mentions this place after 1940, you would use "Lakhdenpokhya". The article itself is to be located at "Lakhdenpokhya" because it's a place in Russia. Mind you, this is not all about Russia; the practice works the other way, too. We are not using Russian romanizations of names of places in Finland just because Finland once used to be a part of Russia. Alternatively, in the pre-1990s English texts the names of the places in Ukraine were romanized from Russian. Presently all those names (except the ones that have well-established names in English, such as Kiev or Odessa, but those are not "romanizations" per se; they are "conventional names") are romanized not from Russian but from Ukrainian. This is a logical solution that makes sense, is easy to apply, and mirrors real-life usage. Your solution (to use Finnish names for some of the places in Russia) is neither logical, nor easy to apply, nor used by the majority of the sources out there; hence it's not something Wikipedia would use.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
The names are in Finnish language, not in Karelian. However, the indication to the Russian, former Soviet Karelia, is interesting. When it was the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic, i.e. 1940-1956, the official languages were Russian and Finnish. Does that mean, that Jänisjärvi, Lahdenpohja, Helylä etc. changes "Yanisyarvi", "Lakhdenpokhya", "Khelyulya" at one night 1956 - in English?
However, there are also some former Finnish places in Leningrad region and Murmansk region, which names were not been changed 1948: Tammisuo/Таммисуо, Leipäsuo/Лейпясуо, Salmijärvi/Сальмиярви etc. Also, there are places at least in Murmansk region, which have not belonged to Finland, but have Finnish names, like i.a. Niluttijärvi/Нилуттиярви and Yrhämäjärvi/Юрхямяярви.
You know, I don't know how else to convey this simple fact to you—for the purpose of naming of our articles, local languages do not matter. What matters is the practices used in the literature written in the English language. If a place has an established name in English (Moscow, Kiev, Helsinki...), that's the name which is used. If a place does not have an established name in English, then practices developed to deal with such situations are used. For minor place names in Russia, 99.9% of English-language sources would use a romanization of the official name in Russian (and every place in Russia has an official name in Russian, one that's documented and verifiable). That's a fact which is really easy to test—just go to any library carrying books in English. English Wikipedia uses the practices that the rest of the English-speaking world uses. The English-speaking world does not use Finnish place names to refer to places in Russia, and neither does Wikipedia. What else can be unclear here?
Regarding your question ([d]oes that mean, that Jänisjärvi... changes "Yanisyarvi"... at one night 1956 - in English?), the answer is "no". It takes a while for the names to proliferate into English usage; I can't tell you how long it took in that case, but I'm pretty sure it was not overnight. Once the change has occurred, however, the "new" spellings would be used in all contexts after 1956. In addition, since Wikipedia did not exist in 1956, the question is wholly moot. We are discussing how the articles should be titled here in Wikipedia, remember? While the question of how the use of names changed in English over time is very interesting on its own, our naming guidelines deal with the existing situation, not with how that situation developed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:09, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
The articles should be titled same way in Wikipedia - and in other sites, too.
Concerning to the romanization, Михаил Горбачёв transliterates to English Mikhail Gorbachev, to German Michail Gorbatschow and in Finnish Mihail Gorbatšov; Борис Ельцин to E. Boris Yeltsin, to G. Boris Jelzin, to F. Boris Jeltsin; Дмитрий Медведев to E. Dmitry Medvedev, to G. Dmitri Medwedew, to F. Dmitri Medvedev and so on.
How we will act e.g. with the name Lauri Letonmäki/Лаури Летонмяки? He was first Finnish, but after Finnish Civil War (1918) he became an inhabitant and a citizen of Russia and Soviet Union. Would the name be "Lauri Letonmyaki" - in English?
Are we done discussing the place names now? If so, great.
As for the people names, if you took time to read WP:RUS, you saw that "People" is a separate sub-section, did you not? Anyway, the set of rules there might look different at the first glance, but the underlying principle is exactly the same—for any Russian person, we first find out whether there is a spelling of his/her name that is widely used in English (again, this is the English Wikipedia, remember?). For Горбачёв, such spelling is "Gorbachev", for Ельцин it is "Yeltsin", for Медведев it is "Medvedev", and so on and so forth. This isn't romanization on our part, it's simply a choice of a spelling that is predominantly used in English. When no clearly predominant spelling exists, we do other checks, like verifying whether there was a spelling under which the person himself/herself preferred to be known in English, or whether there was an English spelling predominantly used in the academic works dealing with the field in which the person in question specialized. Only when everything else fails we resort to straight-out romanization. Such checks, of course, work best when done by editors familiar with the person and/or his/her work, and when in doubt, romanization can be used as an interim measure.
Since I am not familiar with Lauri Letonmäki (I never heard of this person before today), I am hardly the best person to give advice about which spelling works best for him. A quick google books check shows, however, that a good number of English-language books exists that uses the Finnish spelling ("Lauri Letonmäki") and very very few that use the Russian romanization ("Letonmyaki"). A prudent decision in this case would be to go with the former.
The lesson learned in this example is simple—people are treated differently from place names (or organization names, for that matter). Nobody keeps a registry of Finnish people so the spellings of their names could be changed in English if they switch allegiances; while places, on the other hand, are all recorded somewhere (maps, atlases, registries, documents, etc.), and if their international jurisdiction changes, so does often their "standard name" in English—this is practiced by both BGN and PCGN, for example. We simply follow what others do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:55, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
You wrote: A quick google books check shows, however, that a good number of English-language books exists that uses the Finnish spelling ("Lauri Letonmäki") and very very few that use the Russian romanization ("Letonmyaki"). A prudent decision in this case would be to go with the former. Why this is not possible also in Russian places, which have Finnish names?
Because places are not people. As I also said above, there are no registries of people supported just for the sake of having a "standard English name" for every person in the world. There are, however, registries of places supported for different purposes, including one of having a "standard English name". BGN/PCGN established practices that allow having a standard for any place in the world; those practices are widely accepted and used, hence Wikipedia uses them as well. There are no such practices for human beings (or even if there are, they are not widely accepted and used), hence Wikipedia has to consider each case individually, using a set of rules that produces the best results. Does that answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:05, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
However, the fact is that many places in the Republic of Karelia - and some in the Leningrad and Murmansk regions - carries Finnish names, which are used also in the Russian language, like Helylä/Хелюля, Höyhenjärvi/Хеюхенъярви, Jänisjärvi/Янисъярви, Lahdenpohja/Лахденпохья, Leipäsuo/Лейпясуо etc. As You see, these places' names have already been romanized.
On the first point, "Helylä", "Höyhenjärvi", "Jänisjärvi", etc. are not "already romanized names". These are the names in a different language (namely, Finnish). Romanization is not taking a name written in a language using a non-Latin-based alphabet and replacing it with a name taken from a random language that does use a Latin-based alphabet; it is a system of standardization that uses established and clearly defined methods. The method Wikipedia uses is based on BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian. But I already explained it multiple times above; we are starting to go in circles.
The naming of the Tolyatti article in the English Wikipedia is explained in WP:RUS. I have nothing to add to what WP:RUS already says, except that what the Russian place is called in other languages (Italian, Czech, German, French...) has no influence whatsoever on what that Russian place is called in English.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
However, there are also some former Finnish places in the Leningrad and Murmansk regions, which names were not been changed 1948: Leipäsuo/Лейпясуо, Höyhenjärvi/Хеюхенъярви, Salmijärvi/Сальмиярви etc. Also, there are places at least in Murmansk region, which have not belonged to Finland, but have Finnish names, like i.a. Niluttijärvi/Нилуттиярви and Yrhämäjärvi/Юрхямяярви.
The fact is, that any of these places carrying Finnish names and situating in Russia is not explained in WP:RUS. Of course, because e.g. the Finnish name järvi/ярви - means lake - is written to järvi in English, in spite of it situates in Finland or in Russia.
I think I see now where we are not connecting. Yes, the Finnish names of those places did not change. The names Soviets used to refer to those places did not change either (except, obviously, for those which were explicitly renamed). What did change is the territory on which those places are located. Which brings me back to my original point—while places in Finland are usually rendered in English by their Finnish names, places in Russia are romanized from Russian (even if that Russian happens to be a modification of a name in Finnish). In short: before the territorial changes Finnish names were used in English. After, romanized Russian names were used in English. Can't be any simpler than that. If you don't like it, I suggest you contact BGN/PCGN and petition them to change their backward and "incorrect" practices.
Furthermore, your statement that any of these places carrying Finnish names and situating in Russia is not explained in WP:RUS is incorrect. Item 7 under "Places" explicitly states that [n]ames of places located in Russia must be romanized from Russian. And it means all places in Russia, not just those that "carry Finnish names". And what does "carrying Finnish names" even mean? Every single place in Russia would, of course, have a name in Finnish (I trust they have already invented maps and atlases in Finland, and I doubt they use Cyrillics for all places which never were a part of Finland). Those names are used in Finnish Wikipedia, for example. A Swahili Wikipedia would refer to those same places by their Swahili names. And our English Wikipedia refers to them by the names which have been standardized using the practices common in the English-speaking world (i.e., conventional names and BGN/PCGN romanization).
You very last statement (because e.g. the Finnish name järvi/ярви - means lake - is written to järvi in English, in spite of it situates in Finland or in Russia) is also wrong. Names of the Russian lakes are romanized from the official names in Russian (meaning you'll get "yarvi") (per BGN/PCGN & WP:RUS—check any major English-language map or atlas of Russia). Names of the Finnish lakes would be given in Finnish ("järvi"). Names of the lakes located on the border likely need to be investigated individually (and in such cases "järvi" would probably be more common).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, February 1, 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "And what does 'carrying Finnish names' even mean?". It means, that many places in Russia have Finnish names, which is used also in the Russian language. Can't be any simpler than that. Of course, there are more names of Russian places, which have Russian names also used in the Finnish language, like Belomorsk, Murmansk, Vladivostok etc.
It would be quite odd to say in English e.g, that "Lahdenpohja was founded 1924 and although it became a part of Soviet Union 1940, its name were not changed (contrary to mostly in the Karelian Isthmus 1948) and now its name is Lakhdenpokhya"(!)
By the way, the BGN/PCGN seems to be unlogical, due to i.a. German names Kronstadt/Кронштадт and Peterhof/Петергоф, although they "should" be "Kronshtadt" and "Petergof"..;)
Nowhere in the English Wikipedia does it say that the names of those places were "changed". WP:RUS simply guides what the title of the article should be, is all. You are trying to read something into the guidelines which is not even there (and is not supposed to be).
You also point out that "many places in Russia have Finnish names, which is used also in the Russian language". I said it before, and I will say it one more time—from the point of view of this English Wikipedia this fact is irrelevant. All BGN/PCGN does is taking the official Russian name of a place (the one in Cyrillics!), romanizing it using industry standards, and that's that. No other languages besides English and Russian ever come into this picture. Wikipedia didn't invent this approach; it's been in use forever.
Good catch with Peterhof, though. Peterhof, until recently, was an article dealing predominantly with the palaces; and the palace complex is predominantly referred to in English as "Peterhof" (that would be its "conventinal name" under WP:RUS). The palaces information, however, has been split out just a few days ago, and the article about the city now needs to be moved (yes, to "Petergof"). I'll do that.
"Kronstadt" is a case similar to Tolyatti, and the article needs to be moved as well. Thanks for catching those two; I'll move them later today. All in all, what you found is not the illogical part of the romanization guidelines, but rather an inconsistency in their application.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:20, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody has claimed that in the English Wikipedia was said the names of those places were "changed". I wrote: "It would be quite odd to say..." Well, it is quite odd to notice, that Лахденпохья was in English Lahdenpohja 1924-1940, when it was in Finland, but now it would be "Lakhdenpokhya" - although its name was not been changed!
How about we stay focused at the issue at hand (naming of the articles) then; instead of discussing unrelated "it would be" topics?
As for the "oddness" of using "Lahdenpohja" prior to 1940 and "Lakhdenpokhya" after 1940, it's in the eye of the beholder. What seems "odd" to you looks perfectly OK to a native English speaker, and native English speakers are the primary audience of the English Wikipedia. Besides, what exactly do you want me to do? I did not come up with the practice; I merely follow our guidelines (WP:RUS), which, in turn, merely follow real-life standards. I am not even employed by either BGN or PCGN, nor was I even born when the standard was established! If you don't like these standards, please contact the agencies that developed them and let them know; I don't know what else to recommend to you. Wikipedia is most certainly not going to abandon a guideline firmly rooted in real-life practice to replace it with something "better" you personally came up with. If we did that, we'd be "improving" the guidelines every time someone new show up with complaints.
For my part, I, to the best of my ability, tried to explain you why these standards make perfect sense. Wikipedia is not in business of inventing better practices; we merely identify what is being used out there and borrow it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:35, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Honourable Sir,
First I like to remind You, that the English Wikipedia is for all, not only native English speakers.
I simply want You to admit at least something: there are some places in Russia, which do not have Russian names, i.a. Helylä/Хелюля, Höyhenjärvi/Хеюхенъярви, Jänisjärvi/Янисъярви, Kronstadt/Кронштадт, Lahdenpohja/Лахденпохья, Leipäsuo/Лейпясуо, Peterhof/Петергоф, Salmijärvi/Сальмиярви, Yrhämäjärvi/Юрхямяярви and Togliatti/Тольятти. To admit that is nothing to do with politics, if You afraid so. Nobody denies, anyway I, that those places belong to Russia.
Dear WPK, while Wikipedia is, of course, for everybody and not just the Anglophones, the English Wikipedia targets the Anglophones first and foremost, and only then everyone else. Editors are encouraged to use English or adhere to the standards used in the English-speaking countries.
Regarding your second point, no one in their right mind would deny that the names of some places in Russia were derived from languages other than Russian. There are names of Finnish, German, Ukrainian, Tatar, Buryat origin, as well as names which originated from numerous other local languages. What I am trying to explain here is that while the origins of those names vary greatly, every single place in Russia does nevertheless have a Russian name (which is officially recorded somewhere, is written in Cyrillic, and is verifiable). From the romanization point of view, only that Russian name matters; the origins of that name do not. No one would deny you the right to add to, say, the Lakhdenpokhya article, a statement that the Russian name of a place is simply a cyrillization of the name in Finnish, because that's exactly what it is; indeed, if such a statement is referenced, it would make a welcome addition.
Any given article can be located only at one title, and all WP:RUS does is providing guidance as to what that title should be for a certain (and well-defined) subset of our articles. It does not prohibit using alternative names in that article or in the articles that link to it, and it is most certainly not a political decision. Rather, it is a matter of convenience, standardization, and compliance with real-life practices.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Karelian language has no official status in the Republic of Karelia. Therefore, I guess the names must be transliterated from Russian, and the original Karelian names cannot be used, even though the local residents may speak Karelian. But if the Karelian language would become an official language in Karelia, then I guess the original Karelian names might perhaps be used again in Wikipedia? 82.181.130.88 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, whether or not Karelian ever becomes official will have no effect on our naming practices whatsoever. We are not using Bashkir names of places in Bashkortostan, or Tatar names of places in Tatarstan, or Sakha names of places in the Sakha Republic even though the Bashkir/Tatar/Sakha languages are co-official there with Russian. If (or, rather, when) Karelian becomes official in the Republic of Karelia, we would still not switch to using Karelian names. The reason for that is because Wikipedia's naming guidelines are not affected by what language the local residents speak, but rather by how the names of places in those areas are rendered in English. In other words, our guidelines are developed for the benefit of our readers (the majority of whom are Anglophones), not for the benefit of people about whom the articles are written. Names of Russian places are almost always romanized from Russian when they are used in English, as a quick survey of the academic works in English would readily attest.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:11, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm..., I am not sure I can fully follow your description of the guidelines. You seem to say that the neither the official language nor the langueage of the local residents in a given republic/nation matters, but, for the benefit of our readers, any place names should always be romanized from Russian? If this is so, shouldn't the names of all places in all countries be romanized from Russian, for example, the names in the Republic of France? If not, what makes French place names different from Karelian names? Surely, any French names can be transliterated into Russian, and then romanized back to English, just like it is done for the Karelian names. Do you mean that the guidelines depend on the (coincidental) goegraphical borders of the Russian Federation, which are more or less a political matter? 82.181.130.88 (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't just pulling my leg here, are you? :) Anyway, what makes French places different from Karelian names is the fact that they are located in France, while the latter are located in Karelia. Karelia (or, Republic of Karelia, rather) is a part of Russia. France is not. Politics has nothing to do with our guidelines, however. Real-life practices do. When BGN/PCGN establishes standards for places names, they do so based on country borders. We are doing exactly the same. For countries which use Latin alphabets, place names are usually simply borrowed. For countries that use non-Latin alphabets, BGN/PCGN romanization is used. Russian place names are romanized using Russian romanization guidelines. Ukrainian place names are romanized using Ukrainian romanization guidelines... the list goes on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:03, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Hey man, how ya doin'? OK, got a job for you, if I can drag you away from Karelian issues for a while. This dissertation, any idea on how we are able to get our hands on it? It does seem that many of these dissertations are available for purchase on the net, but I'll be damned if we are gonna pay for it. And I think it may come in useful for the new article I will be working on at User:Russavia/Yemen. Any ideas welcome. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak15:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at work now, and that site is blocked by my proxy as "illegal/questionable" (gee, thanks, man!). If you give me the title and the "specs", though, I'll see if there's anything I can do. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:24, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Buggie! I think your best bet would be to present this new format at WP:SOVMETRO. I am not a member of that project, but I think its participants would be interested to look at your proposal.
If you want my personal opinion, though, I think that upgrading the list is a good idea overall, but I don't quite like the implementation. For my tastes, there's too much pink, the table borders are too thick, the navigational template could use some cleanup, and the table layout still needs work. But I think you are on the right track with this. Hope this helps. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
All done. For some reason however the supply of maps/flags seemed to end after S. Perhaps somebody gave up uploading them all. I am not certain. Thanks.Starzynka (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. I noticed a lot of them only had the two flags on Russian wikipedia. When I tryed to copy them they were not from commons. Maybe the missing maps are in commons?Starzynka (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you removed much of the image and map layout of the page. I know you have technical reasons for holding this, but consider:
Lyubavichi is a small village in the "middle of nowhere", so the section of present day geographical and political maps is most helpful in politically, geographically and intuitively grasping its location.
Lyubavichi is nonetheless rich in Jewish and wider historical position, so the original choice and layout of historical maps and images is most helpful in grasping its historical contexts. Often, these parallel historic narratives intertwine: The image and map I used of Napoeon's troops near to Lyubavichi is pregnant with meaning in Hasidic history (See eg. Schneur Zalman of Liadi page), and the wider history of modern Jewish Western European assimilation (See Haskalah and Jewish political movements) versus Jewish Eastern European traditionalism (See Lithuanian Jews/Misnagdim and Hasidic Judaism)
As the original "graphic designer" of this page, I therefore really think that your reduced version involves a great loss of information and intuitive context conveyed, despite your technical reasons. Please consider this carefully, since, as I personally am a "Lubavitch Hasidic" follower, this page is very dear to my heart, and was one of the pages I was most pleased about "improving". If you wish, I can more successfully embed the original historical and contemporary images and maps in a better narrative text, so that any of your objections are met. As I am very busy in the next three months, it may be till April when I could get back to you and this Lyubavichi page. It was just by chance that I saw your edit today. Nonetheless, please write to me your response on my talk page, and I'll read it in due course. In the meantime, perhaps you might consider restoring the original design and context of the page, so that your questions of its relevance could be posted instead on the talk page/arbitration?
I look forward to personally corresponding back to you, though it may have to wait till April when I have time. I dearly wish to make this page most intellectually, emotionally and spiritually satisfying, to do justice to its central significance in the history of the Jewish mystical and wider Rabbinic tradition. This is not an overstatement, as Hasidic philosophy involves the psychological internalisation of Kabbalah, and Chabad (Lubavitch) Hasidism involves the philosophical investigation and inwardness of Hasidic thought, and its philosophical relation to other aspects of Jewish thought. So Lyubavichi is dear to the heart of many people! April8 (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, April! You are right that I removed some of the maps for technical reasons, but some were for stylistic reasons, too. Let me explain.
Wikipedia articles are always about content first, and illustrations are only to complement that content. Illustrations should never be added just for the sake of having something pretty to look at, but also they should never be added to illustrate something that the article does not really cover. In other words, maps and pictures can't be used to convey something, only to supplement something already in the text. Additionally, there is no reason to add multiple illustrations which show basically the same thing, only from a different angle. In such cases, one best illustration should be left, and the rest can be linked to a category in the Commons or wherever else it is appropriate. Finally, images that only have a tangential relevance to the topic should most definitely not be included.
The "technical" reasons for removal included the fact that once the coordinates of a place are specified, our readers can use a great variety of mapping services to study just where exactly a place is located. We shouldn't be second-guessing our readers by inundating them with a bunch of maps to show all kinds of areas near which Lyubavichi is situated, because no matter how many maps we supply, some readers will still not find the one they actually need.
Now, let me go through the images I removed one-by-one and explain why I think each of them does not belong:
File:Dnepr in Smolensk.jpg. While Lyubavichi is not too far from the Dnieper, it does not stand on it. The picture is thus irrelevant (and potentially misleading!)
File:Smolensk admin divisions.png. Lyubavichi is not shown on this map, and the map is definitely redundant to the location-specific maps available via the coordinates service.
File:RR5514-0057R.png. An image of a Smolensk commemorative coin is a fine addition to the article about Smolensk, but it really has nothing to do with Lyubavichi.
File:Yauza river (Smolensk oblast).jpg. The Yauza is nowhere near Lyubavichi, and the image caption explains that the view is typical of the oblast, which does not at all guarantee that the landscape around Lyubavichi is going to look anywhere close to this picture. A Lyubavichi-specific landscape image would have been fine; this one is not.
File:Un-belarus.png. This is a map of modern Belarus. It is not helpful for exactly the same reasons why the outline map of modern Smolensk Oblast is not helpful.
File:Krasnoi.jpg. This picture shows the area of Krasny, not that of Lyubavichi. Misleading.
File:Old Mаhiloŭ 1, Biełaruś.jpg. Yes, Lyubavichi was a part of Mogilev Governorate in the past, but that's not a good enough reason to show a picture of Mogilev in the article. Consider that the Governorate had hundreds of villages; if we included a picture of Mogilev in all articles about them, would it be of any help to our readers? A picture of Mogilev belongs in the article about Mogilev, and hardly anywhere else.
File:Minard.png. This map would've been a great illustration of the fact that the Napoleon army went through the village; problem is that it does not explicitly show Lyubavichi.
I hope you see now what my reasons were. You mentioned that you'd be interested in expanding this article once you have some free time. If you do that, it would be greatly appreciated. I don't know much about the Jewish history, but, if you looked at my contributions, you would see that I am very interested in the subject of small Russian places "in the middle of nowhere", so I'd be excited to help with other (non-Jewish) aspects. I just want you to understand that my reasons for cleanup were actually pretty good—we want to give our readers information that is relevant, and the information about related topics should go into other articles, to which we can easily link from the text. This is not to diminish your time, effort, and enthusiasm; it's all about how articles are supposed to work in Wikipedia. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:41, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
...but I just checked the "Attention" thread from Jan 2010 (about Russian versus Finnish names and their spelling), and thought the topic tangents the issue of romanizing English (or whatever non-Japanese language) words from katakana, which is notorious for "slaughtering" foreign words. I believe the way it is done in here in the English Wikipedia is that there are unless heavy reasons to do otherwise, the non-Japanese words are treated as they are written in their original language and not directly romanized from katakana. Thus "soup", not "suupu" and "petite parade" pro "puchi pareedo". Now, this corresponds directly with the case of Finnish (= non-Russian) place names cyrillicized into a form Russophone people could read right? I do not wish to participate in the battle that has already been archived, or even exhume it for too much, but I find the conflict between these two cases of romanization quite peculiar. Pitke (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pitke! While I, too, like the analogies to illustrate a point, the problem with them is sometimes that you might have two very similar-looking cases, yet one of them would take you to the proper destination while the other would lead you down the garden path.
The problem with romanization is that we are not looking to find one case where something is handled a certain way and then applying that approach to everything else that looks similar. I don't know much about the romanization of Japanese, so I'm going to take your word for how it's done, but if, when romanizing something, it is customary to use the original language and not Japanese, then that's definitely the approach that needs to be taken at all times. With Russian, it's just not how it's usually done, and our guidelines follow that. For example, there are no major English atlases where the names of places in Russia would be written in Finnish (even if those names are originally Finnish), in German (ever if those names are originally German), or in any other language. Every single time, Russian spelling is taken as the base, and romanization proceeds from there. Finnish/German/etc. names are, of course, continued to be used in historical contexts, but for modern references romanized Russian names are normally used (regardless of the origins of those Russian names). If that's not how it's done with the Japanese names, no one is going to impose the "Russian" rules in that area. After all, if the romanization approach were the same for all languages, we would only have one guideline—"romanization of foreign names" :) Instead, a separate guideline exists for Russian, Japanese, Ukrainian, etc. names. That's the way it is in the real world, and that's the way we should be doing it, too.
I hope this addresses your concern. If not, I'll be happy to continue this discussion (yeah, you are right, I'm pretty tired of it by now, but it's a valid question and one important enough to have it explained thoroughly). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to edit this template because of the number of pages directed to it. However the Kemerovo Oblast is changing from Krasnoyarsk Time to Omsk Time on March 28, 2010. Do you think we should change this to:
|kemerovo oblast=KRAT/KRAST (UTC+7/+8) OMST/OMSST (UTC+6/+7) eff. 3/28/10
or just mark it as Omsk Time on 3/28?
www.timeanddate.com has information on this time zone change. Skywayman (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge; I was actually going to do something about it the day I heard of the change, but completely forgot since then.
Anyway, I've just added a conditional clause to that template. Before the change occurs, it is going to show Krasnoyarsk Time and a (sourced) note about switching to Omsk Time on March 28; and after the change it is going to simply show Omsk Time. I know that the date in the conditional is going to be user-specific, so it's not going to be accurate for everyone, but at least it defaults to UTC for the anonymous readers who don't have time specified in their user preferences. On March 28, of course, the conditional can be taken out; I've only put it there in case we forget to update it promptly. Please let me know if you have any comments, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:15, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
А, мда, не проснулся ещё как следует :) Есть. Но в любом случае, с запросами на восстановление надо в первую очередь обращаться к администратору, ответственному за удаление...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Вот. =)) А вы не могли бы мне помочь с этим? Я точно не смогу вести дискуссию на аглицкомъ потому, что я его, аглицкой, не очень-то знаю. --TarzanASG (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Нашёл вот этот DRV. Не то, чтобы стало намного понятнее (два overturn'а и один коммент, но изображение при этом восстановлено не было), но во всяком случае стоит его, наверное, залистить на восстановление по обычным каналам. Если не секрет, зачем вам эта фотография? Чего-чего, а художественной ценности она явно не представляет :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:39, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Я понятия не имею как именно там изображён "headquarters" - никогда не видел это фото, но думаю, что вандализма там не было. А восстановить нужно потому, что было несправедливо удалено или по крайней мере сейчас какая-то там причина, связанная с секретностью фото (я так и не понял в чём дело) уже неактуальна. --TarzanASG (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Кто-то пытался быть очень осторожным :) Из того, что я вижу, это не был office action, имеются два голоса на восстановление, фотография свободно доступна на другом сайте, и, по-видимому, в итоге всё просто завяло в виду отсутствия интереса. Я сделал запрос товарищу Tango, который был последним комментатором на DRV; если они ничего существенного не добавит, будем восстанавливать :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:17, February 9, 2010 (UTC)
Отлично. Естественно, понимаю. Поэтому даже если и была проблема с секретностью, с октября 2009 года она уже неактуальна по причине переезда на Нью Монтгомери стрит. --TarzanASG (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry I've been ignoring Russia for ages! I just noticed that somebody has made great improvements to the oblast map locators. I believe they make a massive difference and look aesthetically much better than previously. I hope sometime though we will get svgs on all the oblasts. But at present I can't even get one on Nigeria..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery13:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the quality looks MUCH better. Now if we could get quality svg type maps for each of the federal subjects instead of those rather awful white plain maps they would look a lot better. Mmm maybe you could ask the Russian guy who altered them if he has the capacitiy to make some decent quality svg locator maps for each of the oblasts?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully, hopefully... You know, I keep thinking, someone with sufficient skills is one day going to be fed up with those ugly pieces of trout and will make us beautiful maps :) But then on other days I wonder if it wouldn't be quicker to learn the craft and do it myself :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah I wish I knew how to make them, I'd have us provincial maps of Russia, China, India etc in no time. Yes LOL they remind me of pieces of cod or something. I'll have some chips and a piece of that map of Omsk Oblast I think!‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you ask User: Виктор В on Russian wikipedia for svgs? Worth a try I think as he obviously knows what loks better anyway. Ask him for maps of the Russian oblasts in standard svg design and quality like the one we have already for somewhere up in northwest Russia beginning with K I think... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask what his plans are. We don't want to scare him away by making him realize just how much work there is there for him, do we? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Nope. Kalingrad was the one I was thinking of. Note we know have an svg File:Russia conic location map.svg. Not sure whether you want this to replace the other plain Russia map. Don't know whether you like the projection or not. You could try it? Ah it doesn't have the oblast divisions. That was the reason you didn't like it wasn't it... ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the projection, but yeah, my problem was indeed with the fact that the borders of the federal subjects are not shown. If someone can fix that (and make sure the map is plugged into the locator template properly), I'm all for using it. It's certainly more visually appealing than what we are using now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:49, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
It would also be a lot better if somebody removed the grid. If the other guy hadn't have dramtically improved the oblast locators I'd have recommended switching to this as standard position in Russia on top but I'm OK with it as it is for the moment. The biggest thing as we say is to get holds of some quality oblast pin maps. Check out one of his recent edits this. The guy seems to making a lot of quality Russian maps everywhere! I'll let you address him in Russian though, whenever you feel like it, but I think it would be worth a try asking him. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here but I see you are talking about my latest fixation - getting conic maps employed in locator map templates! Do you know anyone who could implement this? Maybe someone who speaks French and has a good understanding of maps? French wiki (and maybe others, not sure) have locator templates that can use conic projections but ours can't. (Only equirectangular ones.) I wish I could migrate them to English but my French is rusty and I don't understand the math so I'm really quite useless. I want this rolled out so the Alaska maps don't look so ridiculously skewed! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know anyone who'd be up for this job. It is my understanding that creating a map or two is not that difficult, but volunteers tend to run out of steam after converting a few maps, which is why we end up with a hodgepodge of maps of all kinds and looks... As for the maps we already have, I don't know how well they would work for other countries, but for Russia we really need one showing internal borders, otherwise the map is not going to be too helpful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Judging by his talk page in ru_wiki, he is willing to work on the regional maps as well, but forewarns that he alone can't do it all. The plan there, I understand, is to develop a unified set of guidelines for such maps, so others could join in, producing the maps to the same specs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I see. But really the maps we are looking for now exist. We just need to bring them together. I've asked Nordnordwest if File:Map of Russia - Buryat Republic (2008-03).svg would be compatible with Template:Location map Russia. Basically all we need is to blank out the locator marker and we also have the Russian svg (with oblasts!) that we wanted. If the projection is OK then the coordinates can be readdressed and it should work as a pin map.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery15:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure it's possible to use any map with known projection as a locator; problem is only with re-mapping the coordinates and tweaking the calculations. That's one task I'm most definitely not up to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:23, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? I'll see if the projection works for pin
Hi again, I'm not looking for a map to get created, I'm looking for a template that can handle conic-projection maps that already exist. We don't have this capability on en.wiki as far as I know. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misunderstood. But no, I don't know such a person either. Blo above is going to ask Nordnordwest; if he can't help, I doubt anyone else can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Check out the new map. Good eh? Can you ask our Russian friend to include the north south west eats coordinates of the map so it can be used for pin? Show him the map of Kalingrad or something and how Nordnordwest lists the point on the map page. If he knows the projection we should be able to do it. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery23:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Ulan-Ude. It looks about right doesn't it? Maybe slightly too fat southwest but it looks about right? Actually looking at Zakamensk it seems just about right. Can you program the infobox to only show the one map for Buyatia now then? I think this works. But ask him if he can list the coordinate points on the talk page like Nordnordwest does on his maps. If he does and is able to gradually make decent svg locators for the rest of the federal subjects like these tell him I'll give him a gift of a years supply of (wiki) vodka !! Tell him the map looks beautiful anyway! But just make sure that he uses the right projection and can try to list to coordinates to make programming the pin much easier. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery23:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the infobox, so Buryatia's places will now show just one map from now on. I also left Victor a message asking to provide the coordinates for these and future maps. Will keep you posted!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:40, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
With Buryatia, he said he couldn't quite match the existing map with google Earth, hence the small discrepancy. I did leave him a request to include a full map of Russia in a corner for all future maps he'll be making (including Tatarstan).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:10, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
Слушай, привет. Здесь занимаюсь Dire Straits и увидел, что такая категория была удалена. Вынужден создать {{Dire Straits Categories}} для внутренней нафигации, но это, стобственно говоря, бред. Как подать к восстановлению?--Andrey!18:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Категория была удалена в 2007 году с кучей других похожих категорий "due to overcategorization". Сейчас, конечно, понять сколько статей/подкатегорий было в этой конкретной категории на момент её удаления невозможно, но судя по CfD их было мало, в то время как на настоящий момент мне кажется их вполне достаточно, чтобы категорию просто перевоссоздать без излишнего бюрократизма. Если у кого-нибудь с этим будут проблемы, обращайся, помогу.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for alleviating some of the pain, by adding info boxes etc! I hope to get back to you in the future about my further development of this Lyubavichi page. In the meantime, I notice a possible computer glich in the appearance of the infobox image "Location of Lyubavichi on the map of Smolensk Oblast". It sometimes doesn't appear, though did then emerge when I copied its title to memory to paste it here. Maybe its something wrong with this computer? See if the image appears consistently for yourself. This post is by April8, but the computer in this internet cafe logged me out as I was writing it. I'll post this, then change the signature to my user name, as I wouldn't want to correspond on this random computer code name. Best wishes April8 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to working with you, April. As for the map in the infobox, I am not sure what the problem is. I know sometimes these maps don't show up due to the image loading problems across all Wikimedia sites, but I don't think there are any problems today. The map shows up just fine for me today; I checked the page in two different browsers. If you experience this problem again and have an ability to make a screenshot, that would certainly be helpful. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:55, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. Could you show me? I just plan on creating a lot of similar lists either in the mainscape or in my user space of missing articles to be transwikied but I need to be able to copy a category for instance and be able to format it into a list like List of Czech actors within moments. Can this be done?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery17:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The details may vary slightly from one case to another (depending on how the list is laid out), but the principle is all the same. To wikilink Czech actresses, copy sections D-Z into Word. Press Ctrl-H to bring up the Search/Replace box. In the "Find what" field, type →* ← (four spaces, asterisk, space). In the "Replace with" field, type →*[[← (asterisk and two opening square brackets). Press "Replace all". Now, press Ctrl-H again. This time, in the "Find what" field type →^p← (a caret symbol and letter "p"). In the "Replace with" field, type →]]^p← (two closing square brackets, a caret symbol, and letter "p". Press "Replace all" and voilà! All done; you can copy-paste the list back. The "^p" part stands for "paragraph mark", which is basically the end of the line in a Word document. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:16, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
I rarely give out an award of this prestigious nature, especially as I am supposed to be hiding in the Himalayas and discarding the notion of material gain, but your recent commands to help me on my planned evil mission as Dr. Blofeld have not only given you a permanent place with SPECTRE (and a salary of trillions of yen) but an award to cherish for a lifetime. If you continue with this level of programming excellence and helpfullness you may even be promoted to number two, providing you wear the appropriate eye patch and grey nehru suit and polo neck jumper and get a tan like Emilio Largo. Thankyou. (Dr. Blofeld)
Oh wow, all these years of editing Wikipedia finally pay off! :)
On a more serious note, you are quite welcome. We would all rather have you spend your time doing something useful rather than waste it on tedious manual formatting. Glad I could help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:02, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah LOL! A place with SPECTRE. What more could one ask for eh? LOL. Honestly though List of Independent Social Democratic Party politicians just took me two minutes rather than half hour... This is will be incredibly useful for transwiki work, rooting out the missing articles from other wikis and identifying them on here and in a place where anybody can help start the articles and work towards getting them into english. Much obliged. Thanks.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Basically I'm looking to sort out/clean up the film lists and it would be of great help if i could get the titles to appear in the [[]] with minimum work (without the (1960) on the end of course or number at the beginning). I understand that I will have to do a little cleanup but anything which saves me have to copy and paste each title.. If you see here I'd imagine you programme Word to add the certain things before and after a title but I also need to rid of the (1960) part too. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery13:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out the hardest part. However when I command it to add around the titles it adds "" intead of '' so I have to annoyingly replace them all. Also I need the |- at the end of the || || || || command to show on the next line. Is that possible?
You know, I'm yet to see one of those trillions of yens I've been promised :)
As for the task at hand, I don't know how you did it, but here's how I would've done it. This is best done in Excel, not Word (actually, it's best done with the help of regular expressions, but I doubt you have the means; plus my regexp skills are rusty like you wouldn't believe it :)). It's all going to be a lot convoluted than a simple search/replace from last time.
Anyway, in Excel, you need to create a new spreadsheet with at least two tabs. Point to cell A1 on the first sheet and paste your list there. Make sure that each line occupies its own cell (or the rest won't work). I pasted the list you gave me above, so I have "1. I moschettieri del mare (1960)" in A1, "2. I mustri (1960)" in A2, and so on. Now, press Ctrl-H and enter → (*)← (space, open paren, asterisk, closing paren) in the "Find what" field. Leave the "Replace with" field blank and press "Replace All". That'll get rid of the years following the movie titles. Press Ctrl-H again and replace →*. ← (asterisk, period, space) with nothing. That'll remove the numbering in front of the title.
Now go to the second tab. In cell A1, enter the following (and be vewy, vewy careful... or no rabbits for you later on):
Now point the mouse cursor to the right bottom corner of cell A1 (it should change appearance to a small black cross) and drag down for as many cells as you have movie titles in the list (for your example above, it's five).
After that, select all cells containing the list and copy-paste it into a Word document.
Go back to the editing window in Wikipedia. Insert this to get the table started:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Title !! Director !! Cast !! Genre !! Notes
|-
| {{Yearheader}} | '''[[1960 in film|1960]]'''
|-
Then go back to Word, and copy-paste whatever you have there under the table markup in the wiki window. Don't forget to add
|}
at the end to close the table.
The reason you need to copy-paste stuff from Excel to wiki through Word is because it's the easiest way to get rid of those quotation marks you've been having troubles with.
Only thing is I don't have excel! I've pretty much got it worked out with word but I have to remove some of the crap. I've decided to leave out the the italics so ther eis just one thing I need. Do you know what the command/symbol is for line break. Basically I've done it the way you told me to before where is says #you replace it with | [[ and where is says (1960) you replace it with ]] || || || || |-. My only thing now is that I can't get the |- to go on the line underneath after the || || || ||. You follow? Basically I want the final command to replace (1960) to appear like this in word:
Hmm, without Excel it sure sucks (you might consider whatever spreadsheet program Open Office suite comes with; it's not going to be much different from Excel for a task like this). The symbol for the line break is →^p← (caret, letter "p"); you just insert it where it needs to go in your "replace with" string. Let me know if that works out for you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yep that exactly what I was looking for thanks. I've also found a way to replace some of the crap with nothing but it still takes sometime to remove the dual titles from the list. I think this is about as good as it will ge tusing word now, this is good, it will now take about 5 minutes rather than an hour to do each one. Thanks.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery16:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a toilet joke but I'd rather not... LOL. Thanks #2. I won't be making lists all the time, in fact it pales in relation to the solid work I have to do on here, but all the same I still have a lot of list work and cleaning up to do so as they are often the best way to identify what is missing and to allow people to help turn them into articles eventually..Thanks for letting me know about the word replacement thing. Makes this a lot easier and less time consuming then before... Regards.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something just occurred to me. The lists I have already to be formatted, the only titles we need are marked with a #. All I need then is to remove anything line which does not begin with a #. Any idea how you command the contrl H finder to delete any line not beginning with this? If I could do this I could remove all of the unwanted crap first and then format them as I've been doing and they will then be exactly as I require. See here. Scroll down. I want to be able to copy that list to word and control H it to remove any line not beginning with a #. Can this be done? It would be perfect then. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid Word's search/replace tool is not so flexible as to allow replacing something that does not meet a specified criterion; it can only replace stuff that does meet some criterion. I'm pretty sure a macro can be written to do what you want, but it's been years and years since I wrote any Word macros. Sorry!
For this particular task, however, since most (all?) of the lines you want to get rid of start with "...aka", you can remove them via Search/Replace by entering →...aka*^13← into the "Find what" field, nothing into the "Replace with" field, and by checking the "Use wildcards" checkbox (which you'll see when you click the "More>>" button.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:39, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I take the first part back. I don't use advanced Word features all that much and forgot about a useful one. What you want to do can be done, but you need to be very careful (I haven't tested it thoroughly, so do a check before you post the results back). With this list, copy the unprocessed portion to Word and enter the following into the "Find what" field →^13[!#-#]*^13←. In the "Replace with" field, enter →^13←. make sure that "use wildcards" box is checked. Now keep pressing "Replace All" until the box tells you that Word "has made 0 replacements". There's your list.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:10, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. Your last but one post I tried and it worked but not quite perfectly as it kept the unwanted ratings which took some time to remove but only took a few minutes. I'll try your last post now, if so it should be able to be done instantly. I'll let you know shortly with the 1966 list.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latest one won't remove the ratings either but it would work for all similar lists where unwanted lines start not just with "...aka", but with anything except "#". Ratings and stuff, however, can easily be removed in a follow-up pass by replacing → \(*^13← (space, backslash, open paren, asterisk, ampersand, caret, 1, 3) (sorry if it sounds obscene :)) with →^13← (caret, 1, 3).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:27, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Nope I'm good until the ratings part. That command won't work either. If it can be removed afterwards using AWB I can still create the formatted list quickly.Luckily the ratings are hidden inside the table on the actual article page. But if that can be removed using AWB I'm good to go.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure that the "use wildcards" box is checked, or none of these would work. If it is checked and is not working, then you did something else wrong. I actually try out stuff before recommending it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:42, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Shoot, I accidentally inserted an ampersand when mucking around with the delimiting arrows. If you take it out, everything should work (I know it did when I tried it out!): replace → \(*^13← (space, backslash, open paren, asterisk, caret, 1, 3) with →^13← (caret, 1, 3). And no, there's no closing paren, because we are replacing everything between the opening paren and the end of the line. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:59, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Upon further experiments, you'd better change "find what" to: → \(1*^13← (space, backslash, open paren, 1, asterisk, caret, 1, 3), otherwise the process is going to fuck up entries such as "Così è (se vi pare)" (turning it into just "Così è"). When/if you get to the movies of the 2000s, you'll need to replace 1 with 2.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:04, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yes that works. One small problem though is that I was depending on the (1959) etc to replace with the table documentation of ]] || || || || |- If you can change it slightly so maybe instead of replace with ^13 I replace your latest command with ]] || || || ||^p|- . This way it should do it at once. I'll test it..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one should work (I haven't tried it though), except you need to use ^13 instead of ^p when wildcards are turned on. Why? You'll have to ask Microsoft that question :) All in all, I think you are now at the stage where a dose of healthy independent experimentation wouldn't hurt. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:28, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Nearly. Such is the table commands the way I do it is add the | [[ to replace # first. Then replace ...aka*^13. Then what I'm left with it (1957) and the occasional rating. I can simply programme it to replace (1957) with ]] || || || ||^p|-. However, I'm just left with the ratings then. What I want is a way, imagine you;ve done the first two commands and are just left with replacing the (1957) with the end table documentation. Well I want to know is how do I program it so it then selects (1957) and anything else left on the line after it ^13 or whatever it is so once I've do that it will replace (1957) and any lines with additional ratings on to simply become ]] || || || ||^p|- instead. Do you follow? So I'm looking for the command which will remove the rest of the line from the position I'm talking about. The reason I've done it this way is that is cocks up the table dividers otherwise.
So basically I'm looking for a similar ...aka command which wipes out the remainder of the line after it with the (1957) command so it removes this and any possible ratings after it so it simply erases the remainder of the line from (1957) onwards and replaces it with ]] || || || ||^p|- . Do you follow. Once I know how to do that it should be perfect..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I fully follow :), but the way I understand it is that on every line you want to replace "(1959)" (with whatever junk follows it, if any) with the table markup? If that's indeed what you are looking for, you need to do a search/replace of → \(1*^13← (space, backslash, open paren, 1, asterisk, caret, 1, 3) with the above table markup (don't forget to change ^p to ^13). Note that as long as the year starts with "1" (like "1959"), the above procedure should work. For the 2000s, you'll need to replace "1" with "2".
No worries I got it all figured out now. After the first two as I stated above, I replace (1956) first with ]] || || || ||^p|- and then follow with replacing |-*^13 with |-^p this does the trick of removing the remaining votes which end up on the |- mark aftwerwards. Sounds complicated but doesn't take 30 seconds and giving the desired line break after it. Genius, sounds like something the A Team would come up with. More complicated than it needs to be than if I could use Excel!!. Nevermind I'm rollin now. Thanks, ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery21:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frickin works. Once you get used to the procedure it can be done in 30 seconds.. I've done the 1960s already. With a combination of our geniuses we got this one figured out the awkward way! I really appreciate you taking the time to help me today as the time spent figuring it out today is a small fraction of what it would take to do even a decade of them manually let alone lists for each country by year and country. I'll develop them gradually but this running well now!‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Локатор Татарстана на новую карту не ставил, нет места. Если подойдёт совсем маленький в верхнем или нижнем левом углах, без проблем. --Виктор В (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought there were more actually. I worked out there are possible 1,342,386 articles on Chinese and Indian village-level divisions alone!! Maybe they are not all notable but it is quite scary to think what is possible to write about... Right, shall I add the Tatarstan map to the template and you adap the main template again to become one map?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery21:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember where I read it, but I remember seeing that the number of inhabited localities almost halved after World War II, and steadily continued to go down ever since. But even taking all those places into account, we'll be nowhere near a million articles just for Russia :) Some territories just never were too populated to begin with (consider Magadan Oblast which presently has only 45 rural localities...)
Oh also tell our Russian friend I agree with you and I think however cropped the Russian oblast locator is in the corner it is still much needed to give people an idea of where they are looking in Russia.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's got the idea by now. In fact, I suspect he strongly wishes he never met us in the first place :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 19, 2010; 21:18 (UTC)
Thanks for the offer, Artem, but I must decline. I'm already involved with three projects dealing with infoboxes, not to mention a bevy of other pet little projects I want to work on, and the thirty-something pages-long to-do list of things that actually need to be done. I'll be happy to assist with little maintenance things here and there, but a full-time commitment is not something I can presently afford. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2010; 14:14 (UTC)
Привет, шаблоновод. Я здесь попробовал воспользоваться {{Infobox building}}, но в нём есть засада: при установке maps и coor в поле coordinates чего только не вылезает. Я экспериментировал co статьёй Workingman's Institute and Memorial Hall и закомментарил правки, чтобы ты посмотрел. Также этот шаблон используется в Kenilworth Castle, там тоже выглядит неприятно, но как-то поаккуратнее. К тому же карта в {{Infobox building}} документирована, но координаты точки на карте не документированы. Я не очень сумбурно говорю?--Andrey!21:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Я сильно не всматривался, но параметр coordinates явно можно вообще не использовать. Он автоматически заполнится из значений latitude/longitude. А фигня всякая вылазит потому, что между минусом и троечкой в строке longitude затесался пробел. И, кстати, если вместо latitude/longitude использовать latd/latm/lats/latNS и longd/longm/longs/lonEW, то тогда координаты можно показывать и в градусах/минутах/секундах, а не в десятых градуса. Я в Workingman's Institute and Memorial Hall так и сделал для демонстрации.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 22, 2010; 16:05 (UTC)
Добавил немножко в описание шаблона. Посмотри, правильно ли я сделал. И поставь пожалуйста в координаты, чтобы они выводились наверху страницы. в смысле title, inline.--Andrey!18:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Документацию я править не буду; там по ходу глюков и недоговорённостей больше, чем только недокументированные координаты. Пусть те, кто этим шаблоном пользуются, им и занимаются.
Что же касается вывода координат, то, как оказалось, в шаблон также встроен параметр "coordinates_display", который можно установить в "yes" и координаты в шапке появятся. В чём сакральный смысл не показывать координаты по умолчанию, а заставлять пользователей выводить их с помощью отдельного параметра мне неизвестно, но по крайней мере работает :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 22, 2010; 19:30 (UTC)
Hello, anonymous editor! I don't believe a guideline to deal specifically with the use of {{see also}} on the SIA pages exists. It is, however, a fact that the majority of the SIAs (on the Russian inhabited localities, at least) use this format, and our general approach is to stick with the status quo in absence of specific instructions. Also, this approach does not seem to contradict WP:Layout#Section templates and summary style, so it most probably just a matter of taste. Is there a particular reason why you think it might be problematic?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2010; 03:37 (UTC)
I changed it because up until now, every page I've ever come across with "see also" links at the bottom had them in a conventional ==See also== section, not hatnotes. Don't want to sound like a smartarse, but I suppose you could say I was sticking with the greater status quo in the absence of specific instructions...!
I understand what you mean, but the problem is that the "see also" sections in set indices are not really what the "see also" sections are in normal articles (i.e., they don't quite fit the definition of WP:SEEALSO). They are more like a combination of {{distinguish}} and {{related}}. {{See also}} is only used because it's the best match, and the use of the template (as opposed to the full section header) at least hints that the list isn't there because its entries are thematically related to the content directly above (which they usually are not), but because they are derived from the same root and can easily be confused with one another.
Incidentally, a couple years ago I created {{Geo-Alexander}} to address this very problem (see how it's used, for example, in the Alexander article). Judging by the fact that the template still survives, I'd say the approach at least makes sense, even if the implementation suffers :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2010; 14:37 (UTC)
Infoboxes Apparently, there are infoboxes that include{{Infobox settlement}} and wrap around it to add a couple of country-specific fields. If I understand what you are doing here, that would probably be the best option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These folks in the Yabao Street did know that Guoxing is Госин either...
On 16 December 2009, the new Chinese ambassador presented his credentials to Medved. His name is 李恢, which in English is Li Hui. But in transliterating his name into Russia, the Chinese embassy has written it as "Ли Хуэй", instead of the more correct "Ли Хуй". Any idea why this might be the case? ;) --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak21:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I'd recommend you trust the embassy, and the common "exception" for this syllable listed in all standard tables for Palladius' transcription system. (The actual vowel quality in the Mandarin syllables transcribed as gui/kui/hui in Pinyin and kuei/k'uei/hui in Wade-Giles varies depending on the tone and the "stress" of the syllable anyway). -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then somebody went out and bought a Russian dictionary, which actually recommend the transliteration хуэй (they do - I have a photocopy of the transcription page from Oshanin's dictionary, which shows that exception; can send it to you, if you want), and decided to go with that, maybe on advice of the embassy's locally-hired staff :-) Generally, it seems that Chinese who need to write something in Russian are often no more aware of the existence of the standard Chinese-Russian transcription scheme (see photo) than are Russian journalists, who often would be puzzled at how to properly transcribe a name such as Qiong (it's actually Цюн). It's sort of funny that it happened at this level, of course, but probably not that unusual. Anyway, it's not a big deal, but there is no reason for us not to use the same spelling that the embassy presently uses. (Ezhiki - sorry about cluttering your talk page...) -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's no bother. You answered Russavia's question better than I ever could have. I was only going to point out that the "exception" made for cyrillization of "hui" as "хуэ" is made for euphonic reasons :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 1, 2010; 14:36 (UTC)
Yeah, I've just responded in that vein :) My concern is, however, specifically about the inset map (showing the location of Krasnodar Krai in Russia)—most people cannot be expected to know whether the inset shows a larger or a smaller scale. That is something that did not occur to me when we were talking about adding the insets to all federal subjects locator maps...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2010; 15:11 (UTC)
I honestly don't think that is a major worry. Most people can see by looking at a map with inset map where it is and will recognize the outline of FInland and that anyway. I'm more concerned about how we are going to get our many stub/start class articles on major towns up to B class and written into proper articles...That's more of an issue I'm sure.. Wikipedia should start collaborating with language schools and get people to write them..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery17:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a problem... If you ever learn Russian, I'll personally send you a parcel with a dozen books you can use to work on those articles :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2010; 17:20 (UTC)
Kutdusovich is indeed a patronymic; the last name is Abdrakhmanov. I must say it was pretty funny to read an article when a person is continuously referred to by his patronymic only :) (which while not incorrect, is very, very colloquial). Anyway, I've made corrections. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2010; 18:32 (UTC)
Yeah I had it right initially!! I did mostly refer to him as Abdrakhmanov. I'd be happy to flesh out some of the articles on towns. It would only be a few articles every few days, I'd need your overlooking though to proof read it though... We sure need some people working on them. I can use google translate which is surprisingly good although odd mistranslations I can leave out. Its not as ideal as speaking it fluently but if you can quickly check what I do tackle this should be OK..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proofreading is going to be a problem... I'm afraid all I can do is to append those articles to page 30 of my list of things to-do, to proofread, to copyedit, to move, etc., etc... On the other hand, if you have any sources in English (and no, Hutchinson doesn't count :)), it'd most certainly be very helpful in weeding out the stubs. Another problem with translating from ru_wiki is that the editors there aren't very good about citing their sources, so it's always a pain in the rear to double-check whatever info they have.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 3, 2010; 19:14 (UTC)
Yup, Russian Wikipedia is right—Apastovo was granted urban-type settlement status on September 9, 2004. Also, please don't use the term "rural settlement" like you did in that article. A "rural settlement" is a type of a municipal formation. A selo is a type of a "rural locality". A rural settlement may comprise one or more rural localities, and a rural locality may (municipally) be a part of a rural settlement, urban settlement, or urban okrug. I know it's confusing, but that's exactly why consistent use of terminology is so important. Good job on the article otherwise. I've added it to my list of things to review. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 5, 2010; 21:05 (UTC)
I've just nominated it, "that the Apastovsky Museum in Apastovo, Tatarstan contains archaeological and paleontological finds such as ancient tools, bone needles, stone hammers, a skull of a rhinoceros and mammoth teeth?"‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the credit, but you really didn't have to do it. I haven't touched a single word in the paragraph on which the hook is based! As for Kobyaysky Ulus, you should know that the Sakha Republic is one federal subject I have very little information on (which is why I did not particularly enjoy working on the stubs when you mass-created them long time ago... but let begones be begones :)). Heck, I can't even reference the "administrative status" part properly (although I like to blame it on the Republic's government, who still has not published a registry of the administrative-territorial divisions). That, of course, doesn't mean something can't be scavenged online, but you probably know by now that I prefer to rely on printed sources... The bottom line: I'll see what I can do next week. Good work!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 6, 2010; 00:35 (UTC)
If you think that is going to make me go through it the way I did with Apastovo... you are right :) Unfortunately, I really don't have any sources of any kind for such a look-see to be of much benefit to the article. Nevertheless, I think it's still DYKable—you did a great job. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 14:25 (UTC)
Actually I picked a remote part of Russia at random, I forgot I ever started them. I was quite surprised with the info I found. Written publications are good but so are official government websites..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official government websites, especially for remote parts of Russia, are not as good as they seem to be on the surface. They often contain awfully outdated and sometimes even plain incorrect information. The situation has improved over the past few years, and keeps improving, but caution is still very much advised.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 14:36 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear. Has our Russian friend ceased making the locator maps? We could sure use a single one for Moscow Oblast. That's on my list to sort out with infoboxes first actually.. Right now though I'm sorting out the US with pin maps..‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery14:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey weasel, got a question for you. At User:Russavia/DipMis#Former_missions I have a list of "closed" missions of "Russia". Question is: Do you think I should limit this only to missions which at some stage belonged to the RF? Or should it prob include all of those missions which belonged to the USSR as well? If inclusion of USSR missions is the go, this could mean a huge list, as the USSR used to have a shitload of consulates and the like in countries such as Mongolia, PRC, Iran, etc, etc. Anyway, just wanting an outside opinion on this one. Cheers, --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should ask this. I was doing my assessments rounds the other day, stumbled upon several "Lists of Ambassadors of Russia to Faraway Exotic Lands", and wondered why the ambassadors of the Soviet Union are bundled together with the ambassadors of Russia. Does this question of mine answer yours? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 8, 2010; 14:28 (UTC)
Hmm, you seem to start getting a grasp of that weaseling thing yourself, eh?
I think that if the page is supposed to be a list of the missions of Russia (whether closed or not), then that's what it needs to contain. Soviet missions should be a separate list (but of course, if a Soviet mission became a Russian one after 1991, or a Russian one became Soviet after 1922, it's fine on both lists). And since it's my opinion, that very likely means that's the way things should be done (because I'm hardly ever wrong, right?) :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 15:22 (UTC)
Any chance you can add the timezone parameter to this like you did with the settlement templates. I think the timezone section should be removed from the federal subject articles and placed in the infobox. What do you think?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery15:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because old infobox still needs to be replaced in all articles from Murmansk Oblast onward... and I'm going through them in order.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 15:42 (UTC)
Good work. Ya know we really need a bot working for WP:Russia. This sort of thing should not have to be done manually.. It really is a great shame how even most of the federal subject articles are lacking.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a bot'd sure be great. This particular infobox-replacing caper, however, is not very automatable—in my everlasting wisdom I did not make the parameters of the old infobox fully compatible with the new infobox, so it's more trouble to program the bot than just to replace the parameters manually. Oh well, lesson learned :) There's not that much work left now anyway (infobox-wise). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 16:14 (UTC)
The biggest priority right now for Russia I see is to get the federal subject articles up to a minimum decent level. I will make a note to gradually expand a few and perhaps DYK them. To convert the ugly lists into referenced prose and write half decent articles on them. But I have a LOT on my plate right now...‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. OK then I'll add it to my todo list for expansions. It would be good to get some of the federal subjects onto the main page for DYKs, make people remember than Russia actually exists...‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery16:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll need your help in compiling decent/possible sources to write them. I'll being with Belgorod Oblast at User:Himalayan Explorer/2. If you could help find me url links/google book sources that can be used please simply list them on this page and then I'll try to put them to some good use...‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery16:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know me—I'm not good with online sources. I could mail you a book or two, I guess, but then you won't be able to run it through a translation service, and you'd probably be better off with your local interlibrary loan service anyway :) Still, I can recommend starting with the "Ссылки" section in the corresponding article on the ru_wiki—for the pitiful condition Belgorod Oblast is in, it's as good of a starting point as any.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 16:52 (UTC)
The sky blue doesn't look too good... I prefer the color now. We have other templates in blue. I could change it to a shade of red if you like. It is a different shade of green from the settlement infobox though anyway...‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery17:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just finding it a bit too dark... but red is probably going to have the same problem (in addition of burning out our readers' eyes and looking too Soviet :)). Is there no other shade of blue that works?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 17:29 (UTC)
OK Ezhiki. What I'll do is write a section in stages and then ask you to proof read it. Ignore the rest of the article for now. See User:Himalayan Explorer/2. Click on the history section. Its written but I need you to proof read it with the text above it. Once that is done I can flesh it out using those sources and then start the geography section and so on. It may take a few days to do but I'm confident we'll have a join DYK and much improved article at the end of it.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. I gotta warn you that it's probably not going to be quick, so you might want to do the re-write live; I'll proof-read it later. If you have a particular piece in mind for the DYK, let me know, I'll try to look at it right away. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 18:37 (UTC)
OK. Well the reason I was asking now is before I merge the info from the official site on history etc is that I need the info from Russian wiki to be proof read. But what I can do is process the whole article first, give it to you to compare and check and then I can add the other info from other sources. OK I'll have the article processed by this time tomorrow. I'll give it to you then to proof read/correct mistakes, then I'll add the further info from other sources and reference them. So it should take about a week in total if you would be so kind as to be able to proof read it in a few days at a time.‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be out on Friday, won't be editing over the weekend, but I'll do my best to make myself available on other days. It's unfortunate that my work schedule does not work too well for this particular type of co-operative work. Please don't take that as a sign that I'm unwilling to help—I am happy to, but am not always able.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 19:00 (UTC)
Today is Wednesday is it not? If I can get the transwiki part processed tonight if you could take ten minutes or so to proof read it tomorrow I can get cracking on the flesh work from those sources while you are away for the weekend and then sometime next week the whole article can be checked and then posted into the mainspace and DYK proposed. It should require minimal work on your part. I'll also mark the bad translations which are obvious with a What'?‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery19:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marking will certainly help me concentrate efforts where they need to be concentrated; thank you. As for "ten minutes", I think you are overly optimistic there. You know how anal I am about cross-checking everything? Well, it's even more so with the translations. But, like I said, I will help (although next week looks much better than the rest of this one). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2010; 19:11 (UTC)
OK. I don't exactly have a shortage of article to work on myself. I'll have the initial part done by the eond of this week then for you to proof read next week. Then I will add the info from other sources and post in the mainspace, hopefully by the end of next week. OK? I just want it done correctly as these are highly important articles. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery19:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've completed the initial stage at User:Himalayan Explorer/2. I've left a what? by obviously awkward phrases or mistranslations which will need checking. I've posted the Russian wiki article above the history but I've hidden it. When you come to proof read it you may wish to make it visible or whatever you need to make proofing it easier for yourself. No rush, I'll leave this for you now, hopefully this can be checked by Friday next week...‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Lanternix (talk·contribs) is requesting a re-evaluation of the deletion of his userbox about the Arabic Wikipedia. The request for re-evaluation can be found here. He notified most of the participants in the TFD, but missed you, so I'm correcting that oversight. Your input is appreciated. Thank you in advance. --RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, that's not how it works. The names of the articles are supposed to match predominant English usage, which is exactly the case with Dmitri Mendeleev. "Mendeleev" is simply the most common form used in English to refer to that particular person. Since most (notable) people have an easily identifiable form under which they are known in English, that's the form we normally use, in full accordance with WP:UE. Now, for cases where there is no predominant English usage, romanization is used to produce a standard form. This is usually the case for low-profile entities, such as villages, districts, metro and railway stations, etc. There are, of course, many systems of romanization and transliteration, but Wikipedia, for the sake of standardization and consistency, uses BGN/PCGN-derived WP:RUS.
Once the need for romanization is established, one has to work with what's given—and that's a string of characters in the original language (in our case, "Менделеевская"). Then the rules of romanization are applied to that string to produce the standard form. External factors (such as the word from which the word being romanized is derived) play no role there. There's a good reason for that, too. While you and me know full well that the station is named after that particular Dmitri Mendeleev, it is not necessarily true for people trying to locate an article about that station in Wikipedia (indeed, the very reason why they may be trying to locate that article might be to learn who is the namesake, and whether there even is one!). Those people should be able to apply a standard set of romanization rules to the original and get the standard form. Adding considerations of the derivatives on top of that simply hinders the standardization for no good reason, and ultimately leads to confusion.
I hope this makes sense. I didn't delve into all the details, but I hope it's a good enough overview. Please let me know if anything is still unclear, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2010; 14:28 (UTC)
Hmmm... okay, perhaps I get it. By the way, what's your opinion about the name of Sretensky Boulevard station? In my opinion bulvar resembles boulevard way too much to be used instead of proper English word (and the reader certainly knows what boulevard is ;)). SkyBonTalk/Contributions19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you mean, but in this case "Bulvar" is not a specifier of the type of the street, but a part of the proper name, and we never translate proper names (or their parts). So, it's OK for the actual boulevard to be referred to as "Sretensky Boulevard" (i. e., a boulevard called "Sretensky"), but it's not OK to refer to the metro station as such (because it's a metro station called "Sretensky Bulvar"). Does that make sense?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2010; 19:50 (UTC)
Hi, how do You explain this (from the article Kaliningrad):
Originally named Königsberg, the Prussian and German town had been founded in 1255, and was then largely destroyed during World War II. Its ruins were occupied by the Soviet Army in 1945 and it was renamed Kaliningrad in 1946 in honour of Mikhail Kalinin. The former Russian name was Kyonisberg (Кёнигсберг).
<--->
Today, there is some debate about changing the name of the city back to "Königsberg" in the same way that several other Russian cities have reverted to their pre-Soviet names...
If the former Russian name would had been "Kyonigsberg", CyrillicКёнигсберг, how do You then write the German name Königsberg to Russian?
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question. "Königsberg" is the German name of the city, "Кёнигсберг" is the Russian name of the city (which, of course, is simply a cyrillization of the German name) and the official (Russian) name of the city in 1945–1946, "Kyonigsberg" is the romanization of the Russian name per WP:RUS. As per our guidelines, we (=editors of the English Wikipedia) should refer to the city as "Königsberg" in the pre-1945 timeframe, as "Kyonigsberg" in the 1945–1946 timeframe, and as "Kaliningrad" in the post-1946 timeframe. Was that your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2010; 21:33 (UTC)
The point is that Kaliningrad was Königsberg and Cyrillic Кёнигсберг til 1946, not "Kyonigsberg" 1945-1946. If it would had been "Kyonigsberg", Cyrillic Кёнигсберг, how You would then separate the German name Königsberg in Cyrillic Russian, because it is also Кёнигсберг?
You know, you are asking exactly the same questions as in our previous discussion, only about a different city...
With Kaliningrad, we are not concerned what the city was called by the Germans/Russian/English speakers in 1946; we are only concerned with how we should refer to the city during its various time periods here, in the English Wikipedia, now. This is not about the "historical truth", this is only about consistency and standardization. There is no need to "separate the German name Königsberg" from the name "in Cyrillic Russian" because it is irrelevant to the problem at hand (the problem being consistency and standardization). In case you are still curious, no, there is no difference between Cyrillized German name and the official Russian name of the city in 1945–1946. It'd be strange if there were...
As for the "romanization not working everywhere", you kind of got a point there. However, it not so much a matter of "doesn't work" as it is of "not applied correctly". There are plenty of guidelines in Wikipedia, but it would be foolish to expect that every single article complies with every single guideline we came up with. In some cases, exceptions are warranted. In others, someone made a mistake. In others yet, someone might have come from somewhere where the guidelines are different and was not aware that ours are not the same. Possibilities to go wrong are endless. Whenever you see an article that goes against a guideline, the easiest way out is to either fix the article yourself or, if you are not sure, ask about the difference. More often than not the difference is going to be because someone made a mistake.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 13:32 (UTC)
So, You admit that Your text above is incorrect: "As per our guidelines, we (=editors of the English Wikipedia) should refer to the city as "Königsberg" in the pre-1945 timeframe, as "Kyonigsberg" in the 1945–1946 timeframe"?
Kaliningrad was Königsberg/Кёнигсберг til 1946, not "Kyonigsberg" 1945-1946. Furthermore, Тильзит is the Cyrillic form of the German name Tilsit (name of Sovetsk til 1946).
Sorry, WPK, I am at times having great trouble understanding what it is you want. As for my "as per our guidelines..." statement, I see no mistake—we should be referring to the city the way I described. "Should", however, does not always translate to "always do so" in practice, which is something that needs to be corrected, not picked on. Furthermore, I once again repeat—what the city was called in 1946 is not an issue here. What we should be calling it in the English Wikipedia, now, as applied to different time periods is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 14:30 (UTC)
Слушай, посмотри на мою страницу обсуждения. На тематических проектах молчат. В РуВики я бы попросил начинать одно обсуждение по завершению другого. Что делать, даже не представляю.--Andrey!06:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Удалист, как вижу, всего один, и претензия у него тоже одна — lack of notability. Про venues эти я сам ничего не знаю, но из информации в этих статьях notability действительно определить трудно. Советую в AfDs привести список источников, из которых будет понятно, почему тот или иной venue действительно notable. Если такие источники уже есть в References, можно отдельно показать пальцем :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 14:17 (UTC)
I have moved the article. As for the image, do you have a title in mind it should be moved to? I don't want to move it to somewhere generic, but am not sure what would work best. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 13:46 (UTC)
Hello, my friend. Please, check out the new articles about Russian villages of 94umep(talk·contribs), some of the names of the new articles seem to me quite artificial, e.g. "Average Vasyugan". Hoax or just too literate translation? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this has already been moved (although still not correctly). This isn't a hoax, it's indeed just a too literal translation. What he meant by "average" is really "middle" (as opposed to "upper" or "lower"), but, of course, we should not be translating proper names like that. I'll go through his contributions and clean them up. Thanks for pointing this out!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 13:50 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd be an awesome April Fool's one. As for the picture, when are you planning to move the article into main space? Seeing how the image was deleted as "unused unfree", I'd rather have an article for it in place before undeleting.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 15:49 (UTC)
What did you delete them for in the first place? I'm going to restore them now, but please go through them and remove {{db-u1}} ASAP before someone deletes them again :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 16:08 (UTC)
I deleted them whilst I was in a shitty mood - thinking f' it, I is outta here. But I had some undeleted a while ago, never got around to getting the others undeleted, until now. Thanks for that. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any more. When I first saw it, I thought oh wow, what kind of use could this possibly be of (hence the talk page comment)? A while later, I needed to look up some Korean sportsman while watching the Olympics, and found a similar template, indicating that Koreans list their names with the last name first and first name last. I knew they do that, but completely forgot, so a reminder was actually pretty useful. Which led me to think that someone may actually find the patronymic reminder useful. All in all—I don't know what should be done about that template, but a TfD might be a good way to find out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 16:30 (UTC)
You say "there is no good reason to transliterate ref titles," and since you've been around these parts a lot longer than I and are much more active, I certainly defer to you, but my thinking has been that in English Wikipedia references should be given in a form maximally useful to English-speaking users. Am I wrong? Languagehat (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not wrong. However, as per Wikipedia:REF#Non-English sources, the source title should be in the language of the original, which you can follow by a translation (which is something I neglected to do myself). Transliteration is not nearly as useful here as the words still remain foreign and unfamiliar :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 17:05 (UTC)
I'm not sure it should be merged. It had been discussed quite a bit on its own merits and has plenty of coverage. If it turns out that a merge is the best course of action, however, I would suggest Religion in Russia (which itself badly needs re-writing and an addition of a section on atheism—luckily, not everyone in Russia has been eaten by a church; there's still some hope!).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 18:16 (UTC)
On the Pechenga article, I have provided a reference for the postal code, but it is coming up with citation needed still. Can you have a look to see why this would be? Also, this and this may be of some use to you with your mission to do all settlements in Russia. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak12:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know of that one; in fact, that's the only website I use to source the postal codes. It is not so good for doing overall lists, however, because it's specific to postal service, so there are many gaps and/or redundancies.
As for the reference, please take a look at the documentation of {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}. The parameters used in the Pechenga article's infobox are deprecated (albeit still supported), so it's not immediately obvious how to add a ref so the "citation needed" flag goes away (and yes, the task to clean this up is on my to-do list...). Since the parser does not currently allow for processing of strings, a reference should be added as a separate parameter (postal_codes_ref in case of the postal codes), otherwise you are going to have "citation needed" along with the ref. A list of _ref parameters is available in the documentation. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 16, 2010; 13:23 (UTC)
Don't know if you know of this, User:Drilnoth/assessortags.js/doc, but it allows us to add WPRUSSIA tags to talk pages by adding a small menu at the top of the page - quite useful for doing fly-by tagging, which if you check the unassessed articles you will see that I have added about another 200 odd in recent days for you to get to work on in assessing PMSL. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak18:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, more work, just what I need. Thanks a bunch!</sarcasm> :)
Seriously, though, I am aware of the tool, but I don't really find it useful because it doesn't allow adding class/importance in one edit. If I tag something anyway, I'd rather make one edit than two. Still, if you are passing through and see an untagged article, even an empty tag is fine—I'm reviewing a few unassessed articles daily, and if an article is not tagged, I'm not very likely to find it unless I stumble upon it accidentally. So, thanks (no sarcasm this time :)), it does help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 16, 2010; 18:47 (UTC)
That's OK I can see you've been doing other work. Well, you actually don't realise how hurtful it is to have people describe your hard work as "grossly improper" or "horrible". You obviously did not see the horrible mess in some of the categories before I neatly organized them, not to mention a lot of the horrible mess I've cleaned up for developing world countries which few other people seem to care about. Cities, towns and villages is not an ideal naming but neither do I think "Inhabited places in" or "Populated communities in ... is a good idea either. They were named Cities, towns and villages so it would click with editors to put all places in the category or sub category and to stop labelling tiny villages as Cities in.... Unlike with Russia which has very specific place types.... Dr. BlofeldWhite cat18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do realize. Happens to me every now and then, too. I've learned to just shrug it off. The important thing is that you know that what you are doing is work someone somewhere needs, even if it makes no difference for many (most?) other people. Anyway, glad to have you back on board!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2010; 18:36 (UTC)
Thanks, This Khanson bloke looks promising. Lets hope he isn't a one hit wonder and decides to stick around. We could sure use some Russian speaking people editing Russian articles!Dr. BlofeldWhite cat18:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we decided not to add that information for now, because once the database is complete, it will be trivial to add the localities lists on the fly and in bulk. Adding it manually requires too much work (correcting spelling/romanization/disambiguation/etc. is no small task, as you've just had a chance to see firsthand :)). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2010; 19:22 (UTC)
Your database begins to interest me. TO what purpose does it serve? DO you intend using it to expand all the articles and create many missing ones using a bot or something? I vaguely recall you saying about your database yonks ago...
Yeah, it's just taking so darn long to compile... I'm way over my original deadline by now, and still only ~80% done. It is basically a list of all inhabited localities in Russia, along with their administrative and municipal status. And sources. Once it's ready, producing something like this (sans coordinates and maps) will be a matter of a few clicks. When Fritz was alive around, the plan was then to feed those lists to his bot for mass stub production, but even it that form I think they are a good starting point for endeavoring writers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2010; 19:35 (UTC)
Achinsk looks fine to me (the small details which did bother me I already have taken care of). Thanks! As for the geobot, that's good to know, although the stubs he created for Poland contain much more information than the stubs which would be produced based only on the information in my database. Well, better get back to work on that damn database now :) Last year, I promised a May delivery, but it most certainly going to be later than that (in no small part because some federal subjects still have not published the registries I'm using as sources).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2010; 20:14 (UTC)
Once your database is completed will it actually be possible to generate articles about selsviets and rural type settlements etc? Ultimately we want a full length article on every places and settlement type in Russia but the only way it is possible is by a bot of course... As long as they contain some basic information I don't see a problem with it... I do however have a job believing that all of the settlements red linked in the Alex type lists are notable though!! I'm sure most places have some claim to notability but we really need people developing these articles after creation...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The database tracks all administrative and municipal divisions, down to individual inhabited localities (and the districts of big cities). So, it is possible to slice the data any way and pull, say, a list of all inhabited localities in a selsoviet, or a list of selsoviets corresponding to a rural settlement, or a list of inhabited localities in administrative jurisdiction of a city and whether all of them are also a part of a corresponding urban okrug, and so on, and so forth. You understand, of course, that this is only very basic information, which is why I am starting to think that a bunch of lists similar to Alexandrovka is where automation should stop and people should take over. On the other hand, I wouldn't worry much about small villages not meeting the notability criteria—they all do; it's only the matter of finding sources (a field trip to a local lore museum in the middle of nowhere in Russia would immediately address all your concerns about notability of even smallest villages with a population of, say, two :)). Even I, on the other end of the globe, am often able to find enough data to bake something like this (which of course is not much, but still an order of magnitude more useful than just an automatically produced stub). Once these article start to cross-link, the possibilities are endless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2010; 20:49 (UTC)
Hi there Ezhiki. Could you translate the infrastructure section of the ru.wiki article on Moscow Monorail, as my Russian is a bit soft in that realm. I was going to ask Skybon, but I seem to have missed the mark.
Oh wow, I'm not sure I'm the right person for this task. I'm neither a metro enthusiast, nor an engineer, nor even really a techie, and that section uses a lot of very specialized terminology. I could certainly try and do my best, and the result will probably even make some sense in English, but if you can think of a different person to ask, I'd recommend you try them first. Please let me know what you decide. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 27, 2010; 20:30 (UTC)
In linguistics, romanization or latinization, alternately spelt as latinisation or romanisation (see spelling differences), is the representation of a written word or spoken speech with the Roman (Latin) alphabet, or a system for doing so, where the original word or language uses a different writing system (or none).
WPK, I never got a response from you to my question—why do you keep asking me all these questions? I merely enforce the guideline in place, is all. Even if for some magical reason I start agreeing with you, I can't change much on my own.
That said, both of your questions are easily addressed. As for the first one, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that the English versions of the Russian websites are seldom developed by the native speakers; they are mostly produced by Russians with varying degrees of proficiency in English who are not always aware of such things as BGN/PCGN romanization or bothered too much about the consistency on their own websites.
Case in point—the very pages you cited. Take this one—if the ridiculous "metropolitan region" did not clue you in, then the fact that the administrative center of "Lahdenpohja Metropolitan Region" is... "Lahdenpohya" surely should? Or that while the page on the history of Pitkyarantsky District is titled Reference on historical and cultural features of Pitkäranta region (what happened to "metropolitan" here, by the way?), the page about the district itself is called Pitkyaranta Metropolitan Region (with the administrative center of "Pitkyaranta")? Or that the list of these so-called "metropolitan regions" refers to them as... districts ("Pitkyarantsky district", "Lahdenpohsky district", and a mysterious "Souyarvsky district", which goes to a page about "Suojärvi Metropolitan Region" with the administrative center of... "Suoyarvi"?)
As you see, what even the official websites use is not always something you should trust on first sight. Not to mention that since the official website of Karelia has nothing to do with the Wikimedia Foundation, they have a full right to use whatever conventions they see fit (including making a whole mess as they are currently doing). Our community develops and follows the conventions that work best for the English speakers. We would be doing a poor service to our readers if we started adopting half-illiterate and inconsistent uses masterminded by non-native speakers as our guidelines.
As for your second question, I completely agree that since Finnish and English both use the Latin alphabet, there is no need to transform the Finnish names for use in the English-language texts. That's why all articles about places in Finland are titled using their Finnish names. Names of places in Russia, however, are romanized from Russian; and since all places in Russia have Russian names, written in a different script, that is why romanization is necessary. Did I mention (five or six times) before that the origin of the official Russian place name does not matter for the romanization purposes? Whether a place name originated from Finnish, German, Sami, or Udege, makes no difference whatsoever, because the BGN/PCGN guidelines only deal with the Russian spelling as a starting point.
I said it several times before, and I'll say it again—no, I do not agree. Neither you nor me can possibly know better that BGN/PCGN, who developed the guidelines on which ours are based. I can't possibly have more "prestige" than the government bodies of the United States and the United Kingdom, specializing in standardization of the names of geographic locations! If you think they are in error, you are quite welcome to contact them and ask why things are the way they are. Why keep badgering me?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2010; 20:55 (UTC)
Hey Ezhiki, due to circumstances which if you read my talk page you will see, I will have intermittent i/net connection over the coming days. I have placed an article at Wikipedia:April_Fool's_Main_Page/Did_You_Know#2010_Georgian_news_report_hoax for April Fool's DYK...could you be so kind as to keep an eye on the nomination for me, and if possible, deal with any issues that might arise. You may also be able to suggest a couple of alternative hooks also? Any help with that would be appreciated. Cheers, --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding Iridescent, I can't say I like this hook too much either, especially for April Fool's. It's just not funny, considering how recent the real events are. I'll gladly keep an eye on it as a part of the regular DYK flow, however. If I think of any alternative hooks, I'll post them there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2010; 19:00 (UTC)
On March 31, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Varzuga (rural locality), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Figured as much. I'm still not too happy about that article (there is lots of information with far too few refs, IMO), but as a starting point it is definitely leaps and bounds beyond the abomination we currently have in place. Thanks for putting your time into this as well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 1, 2010; 17:15 (UTC)
Thanks. Actually I had intended finding sources, especially information from the official website, although I'm too tired right now. But it is much better than it was anyway!Dr. BlofeldWhite cat17:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replied at T:TDYK on that nom. What I did was a quick Google-book search for Kola and Frederick II and quick-fix of the article. Other keywords might bring more information, especially on the Russian web - off course it is a matter of time and will, which I don't really have :-) Uspehov. Materialscientist (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's holiday I don't observe, but thanks anyway; I appreciate the gesture. I wish you a celebratory mood as well!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 3, 2010; 20:42 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki, since I am unable to verify your reference for listing Franz Joseph Land as an island territory and separate administrative subdivision of Arkhangelsk Oblast, I would like to point out the following: The "districts" of that articles are raions. The Russian Article about Primorsky Raion says that Franz Joseph Land became part of that Raion on 2006-01-01. Could it be that your source is older?--Ratzer (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my source is newer :) The new law on the administrative-territorial divisions was adopted just this last September, which is also when Franz Joseph Land and Victoria were officially named to be "island territories" (before, in the 1996 law, last revised in 2004, they were simply listed separately). Your confusion is rooted in the fact that the Russian article about Primorsky District deals with Primorsky Municipal District, of which both Franz Joseph and Victoria are indeed a part. Primorsky Administrative District does not include them. With Novaya Zemlya, it is administratively a district (raion), but municipally it is an urban okrug. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 3, 2010; 20:38 (UTC)
Слушай, ты же не в России живёшь? Попробуй набрать в поиске по-русски «Мраморный дворец» и посмотри, о Питере речь идёт или о разных странах. Надо для дискуссии к переименованию. Не срочно.--Andrey!11:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Не очень вижу смысл это проверять, но "мой" гугл на первой странице из десяти ссылок девять показывает на страницы про Мраморный дворец в Петербурге (включая русскую википедию во второй позиции), и одну на санаторий в курорте Моршин (восьмой позицией). Во второй десятке результаты немного более разнообразны.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2010; 13:58 (UTC)
Wasn't it you who recommended me this website a year or two ago? The thing with that particular collection is that I already have 99% of books it offers and that the format they are in is not searchable. At any rate, thanks for thinking about me when you found it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2010; 14:01 (UTC)
Not a problem; we are all volunteers here, sometimes other things take priority. I've been keeping myself busy with cleaning up the district articles from the earlier batches (like Bashkortostan). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 6, 2010; 13:25 (UTC)
On April 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kolsky Uyezd, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coat of arms of Kola, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
If you are going to move articles, do not forget to also move their talk pages, you neglected to do this for this move, and I have just fixed it. -MBK00404:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that matters such as High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve bore the living shit out of you, but still I come to your talk page for advice...why...I don't know. Anyway, Anatoly Brovko, the new governor of Volgograd Oblast was included in the Reserve Golden Flock in February 2009, and as you can see he was at the time the "Deputy Head of the Administration of Investment and Trade" in the Volgograd Oblast Administration. Do you think the table should be modified to include any promotions they may have received? The question I guess is whether the promotion has come about because of them being a part of the Reserve...if it wasn't, it isn't really relevant to the Reserve itself, is it? Any comments/suggestions on that would be welcomed. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who? What? Хде затмение??? ...you get the point :)
I think the right approach here is to leave the bulk of the table alone, the way it is in the source, but add another column to which (sourced) changes/promotions could be added. I'd normally not recommend such approach, as one can usually check the article about a listed person, but in this case most of the links are red. Documenting a single change in the table is probably simpler than creating a new BLP article from scratch. Just my two cents...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 8, 2010; 20:40 (UTC)
can u please help me there? i added the administrative division of the raion from the russian wikipedia but i dont know how to translate exactly all names there. thx SuperzoharTalk09:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I can help. Just wanted to point out that the section is titled "Administrative divisions", yet the divisions you listed are municipal. The districts of Arkhangelsk Oblast are administratively (albeit, temporarily, as the law on the administrative-territorial division puts it) divided into selsoviets; rural settlements are a unit of municipal division. Russian Wikipedia (from which I presume you copied this list) tends to mix these two concepts up. Also, are you planning to create the articles on those rural settlements? I need to know that in order to link the articles properly. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 12:53 (UTC)
thank u friend. i appriciate much ur help. u know, in israel our subdivisions are so easy and simple:-) yes i plan to write articles on at least some of the settlements. In addition i wanted to consult with you about the article i created Shakhovskoye rural settlement. It's the birthplace of Mikhail Suslov:-). maybe u can improve something. i also created Uglegorsk, Amur Oblast, take a look. (importance is raising due to construction of Vostochny Cosmodrome). thank u again. SuperzoharTalk13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pretty much any country's divisions are going to be simpler than Russia's :) I had Americans brag how the divisions of the US are oh so complicated and differ from state to state. Pfff! Russia's differ from one federal subject to another as well, plus there is a federally mandated layer of local self-government on top of that. Not that having the most convoluted system of governance is something to brag about, but the fact is the fact :)
Regarding Shakhovskoye rural settlement, I just don't believe we need articles about those just yet. Occasions when one will have more to write about them besides the fact that they exist and contain such and such villages are going to be pretty rare. Plus, once my database is done, those can be generated on the fly as well. Individual villages, that's another matter entirely. Unlike rural settlements (which were only created a few years ago), most of the villages have long interesting histories (although unfortunately digging up decent sources is no easy task). The fact about the birthplace of Suslov, for example, can go into the article about the village of Shakhovskoye. If you don't mind, I'll convert the article about the rural settlement into the article about the village itself.
Finally, Uglegorsk is already on my list of things to review. I may not get to it soon, but I will get to it eventually, I can promise you that much. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2010; 13:16 (UTC)
Rural settlement. "Rural locality" is сельский населённый пункт. And in case you were wondering, посёлок would be a "settlement", "settlement of rural type", or "rural-type settlement" depending on the context and the peculiarities of the federal subject that "settlement" is located in. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 12:53 (UTC)
Yeah, it's one of the things at the top of my WTF list. I could not find anything about the place at the time, so I planned to revisit it at some point in the future. Well, seems like the future is now :) A quick search today revealed this link, which seems promising.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 15:26 (UTC)
OK, the site turned out to be quite useful. It had a few tips which helped me discover that I had a few sources of my own, just never knew where to look before. The article is now moved and re-categorized properly. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 16:42 (UTC)
Oh thanks (but it almost feels you'll want something in return...)! Care to add other four rural localities in Saratov Oblast to that list so readers aren't left wondering why the district name is included in this place's title but not in others? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 16:51 (UTC)
Well your feeling was spot on, old chum, mate, lad, etc. As you know I am working on User:Russavia/Heads at present - wanna finally get this page, started in September 2009, finalised. I just don't know how I can have you return the favour just yet though, so I will keep it in reserve for when I really need it. Perhaps something mundane with that list I could have you do...like doing up lists of all of the redlinks or something...I haven't really decided as yet, but when I do, you can guarantee that you will be the first to know. As to adding four other localities, but you know how it is, well, to be honest, I can't really be arsed doing that. Hey honesty is a virtue innit? Of course, if I knew which four localities, I could do it, but then "2 arms, 2 legs and a heartbeat" keep reverberating in my mind...... --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak17:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I understand. Compiling a Golden Flock list for your own petty uses, eh? :) Well, I supposed I should be flattered... As for the four localities mentioned earlier, I figured as much, which is why I have added them already.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 17:12 (UTC)
Ha-ha, very funny. You realize that your "help" with Sosnovka did nothing but create more work for me? A decent person would count that favor out...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 17:21 (UTC)
Well I can't exactly have you running around creating useful content like Kolsky Uyezd and Coat of arms of Kola (2 DYKS in 2 days - geez, that is almost as many as you have had whilst on WP eh?), but we do need you out there in the trenches from time to time, instead of simply supervising others from above (refer to your talk page above). So I was glad to get you into the real world, even if only for a short time. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak17:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I like it here above! Plus, those two DYKs should balance at least two or three more years of mindless editing on my part.
Thank you for inviting, I’d appreciate your clarifying two points: (1) what exactly is not current — the map of St. Petersburg or the borders of Kolomna on it? (2) why you consider it important to highlight the fact? Thanks in advance. --Ytsukeng Fyvaprol (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The borders of Kolomna MO itself are fine, it's the map overall. There were some changes to the administrative divisions of St. Petersburg, which this map does not show. I don't have the details right now, but I can look them up when I have access to my sources. As for your second question, I'm afraid I don't understand it. The fact that the map we present to our readers is not current should be mentioned, yet your question seems to imply that you do not believe doing so is important. If you could clarify what you meant, it'd be appreciated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 19:38 (UTC)
Ah, now I see, thanks. The reason behind my second question was in fact that on my screen, I can hardly see any administrative division at all, not to mention the thumbnail. IMHO, the purpose of the picture is to show where Kolomna is located within the borders of St. Petersburg. Thus, I’m afraid it may be of too little to no importance for a reader; on the contrary, it can even be misinterpreted as an invalid map (whereas no valid one is offered instead). --Ytsukeng Fyvaprol (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't see much detail on my screen either, but readers can always click on the image to see the details better. One could argue that if the reader is not interested in the map much, presence of a notice that the map is outdated isn't going to make any difference, but when the reader is interested to the point of clicking to enlarge the image, a fair warning serves a very useful purpose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2010; 13:20 (UTC)
I am a big fan of using official names whenever possible myself, but in this particular case WP:UE is likely to carry more weight. I would suggest a WP:RM so more opinions could be gathered. I am personally leaning to moving it back, but not so much so as to revert the move.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 9, 2010; 19:44 (UTC)
I too am a fan of using official names, but if one looks at the English version of premier.gov.ru, they too refer to him at Prime Minister God. I will start a WP:RM back to Prime Minister, given most common usage. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak21:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi, dont want to bother, but i want u take a look in that article, i translated some of the materials using google translate and that of course is lagging....maybe u can improve it a little:-)SuperzoharTalk16:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you did not expect a miracle. This is the best I could do without completely killing my usual weekend retreat. I'll see if I can find more when I return during the work week, but don't hold your breath for a great expansion. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2010; 23:57 (UTC)
Hi. The timestamp in your signature is currently formatted differently from the normal signature timestamp. While there is nothing wrong with this per se, it doesn't allow popular scripts such as Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time to format the timestamp for users who use that script. Do you think you could change it back to the default? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I regret the inconvenience, but no. This is the format I prefer. However, if there are other ways to retain this formatting without affecting the script, I'll be happy to consider them. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2010; 00:07 (UTC)
I think ours is actually quite cool. WP:ICELAND and TURKEY use a similar thing, and that's where I got the idea. On IRC Diego Grez was kind enough to offer to do one up for WP:RUSSIA, and I actually prefer ours. So thanks to Diego also. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "disgusting", I didn't mean the visual, I meant the actual underlying project :) The visual itself, in fact, me quite likes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 01:33 (UTC)
I have finally got around to prodding this article about a non-existent Chukotka settlement, having found no support for it bar the two very tenuous links given in the article itself in either map (US and Russian) sources, nor in any of the relevant laws on the Chukotka Duma site, in case you wish to make any comments. Fenix down (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that there are a large number of ref errors coming up relating to Chukotka articles such as Leningradsky and Anadyr. It seems that some of the references relating to the 2002 census do not follow through to the ref list. I have been using the ref name="Census2002" label and using the ru-census template which I thought was correct, but something seems to be amiss. I'm sure I have done something wrong, but I cannot see it for looking. If you have the opportunity to have a look at one of them and maybe work out what I have done wrong, I am happy to go and make all the other necessary corrections. Ta. Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. Don't beat yourself too hard, because the fault is entirely mine :) I recently changed the ref name in the census template to "PopCensus", so it matches the exact same ref coded into the "inhabited locality" infobox; this way we can still use both the infobox and the census template without having either duplicate refs or having to spell out the 2002 Census line. I'll take a look tomorrow to see if there's an easy fix. Sorry about that! I for some reason was sure that "Census2002" is hardly ever used outside the template. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 13, 2010; 23:46 (UTC)
That page uses OKATO as a source, and since OKATO does not list any of those urban-type settlements, the article does not either. If you are willing to add and source the settlements being liquidated, I have nothing against it. Just make sure you mark which line corresponds to which source, and all should be good. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 13:03 (UTC)
Hi there! I normally am trying not to pile up more work until I'm done with the previous batch (and I'm only about half-way through Udmurtia and, as you see, got sucked into helping with the districts of Krasnoyarsk Krai as well :)), so I'd rather not start anything new at this point. However, if you truly really have no other projects of your own to occupy your afternoon, please let me know, and I'll make a template for Altai Krai for you. Urban-type settlements of Krasnoyarsk Krai, those will need extensive preparation work, not to mention a few sources which would be really useful but are not yet available. I hope you understand. Please let me know either way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 13:31 (UTC)
Agreed. Districts are more important for now. Could you prepare Altai Krai for me? Do not worry. After I continue with some towns in Kazakhstan. Starzynka (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Done, in about an hour. I think we must wait until good maps in commons are available. There is no point in uploading maps from Russian wikipedia. Starzynka (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
I see you have reverted this guy [4]. With the exception of Turkey and parts of Cyprus (which is defacto independent) no where else speaks "Turkish". Turkic yes, but there is again no need to mention it for countries such as China, Tajikistan, Iran..where Turkic languages are minority. The usage of the word "counties" seems to me to incline the person has an agenda (see his talkpage). I would appreciate it (since you are more experienced in wikipedia) to put the category for deletion. Thanks--Pahlavannariman (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I only reverted the pages which showed up on my watchlist, but I can see now the problem is wider than I thought. I'll take care of it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2010; 14:43 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki, I was thinking, now I have created at least a start for most of the Chukotka articles, that I might have a go at some for Nenetsia as it seems quite a small AO, but also one that has had little attention paid to it. I have been reading up on the Naryan-Mar website and the Zapolyarny District website with a view to starting an article on the district and the rural settlements within it and Iskateley UTS. I was planning to set the Zapolyarny article in the same style as the Chukotka AO district articles I have started. I was therefore wondering whether you could confirm that the various municipalities outlined here on the Zapolyarny website are municipal rather than administrative divisions. They seem to be municipal to me, but I thought it was a good idea to confirm this before starting any writing!
I was also wondering how they should be referred to. Should they be called rural settlements, selsoviets or something else? I note that [Plesetsky District] in Archangelsk Oblast, to which I understand Nenetsia is administratively subordinated, calls them rural settlements, but again, I thought it might be best to confirm before starting anything. Thanks for your help. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Nenetsia should be easy enough. In terms of the number of the inhabited localities, it's the smallest federal subject in Russia. Its divisions are pretty simple, too, although you can't really compare them to the divisions of Arkhangelsk Oblast. Each federal subject has the right to set its own system of administrative divisions, and Nenetsia, while being an autonomous okrug in jurisdiction of Arkhangelsk Oblast, can nevertheless do it independently of the oblast.
The administrative divisions of Nenetsia match its municipal divisions one-to-one (with one exception), which should make things easier for you. The AO is administratively divided into eighteen selsoviets, the territory of the town of Naryan-Mar, and the territory of the urban-type settlement of Iskateley. Naryan-Mar is municipally incorporated as Naryan-Mar Urban Okrug, while the rest of the territory is municipally incorporated as Zapolyarny Municipal District (this is the exception I mentioned above—there is no Zapolyarny Administrative District, although OKATO does list the municipal district as such for convenience). The municipal district is divided into eighteen rural settlements (corresponding to the eighteen selsoviets) and one urban settlement (corresponding to the territory of the urban-type settlement of Iskateley). So, to answer your question, you should be able to use this without any problems; just be careful with the terminology you use and remember that our articles are primarily about the administrative units; municipal units are merely mentioned within those articles (the Russian Wikipedia does it the other way around).
I would also recommend against creating separate articles about either selsoviets or rural settlements, and concentrate on the individual rural localities instead. There really isn't much one can say about any of those selsoviets which cannot be said in the articles about individual villages. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2010; 13:51 (UTC)
Thanks for that Ezhiki, that was big help. I know that there is a variety of methods of organisation across Russia, so wanted to check first! Just to clarify, I see two options for the district article:
1. Since Zapolyarny is only a municipal district, are you saying that it is still OK to do an article on it (especially seeing as there is already a redlink to it on the admin divisions page), but to make clear that this is a municipal district article rather than the usual administrative district article and that there is no Zapolyarny Administrative District in the article's version of this or;
2. Do you mean that it is best not to do one at all, so we only have admin district articles, with a table like this for the rural settlements featured on the NAO article page?
On the first one, an article titled Zapolyarny Municipal District will be just fine. We do put administrative divisions first, but when there isn't one, then obviously an article about a municipal division will have to do.
Sorry, one more quick Q. Amderma, Urban-type settlement or village? The article says UTS, but the official website of Zap Dist says village. I'm assuming village? Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a settlement (of rural type). To the best of my knowledge, it was never explicitly demoted, but the law on the administrative division adopted in 2005, which replaced the law of 1996, no longer refers to it as an urban-type settlement (while it still does with regards to Iskateley). You can safely call it a "settlement". The most recent document that refers to Amderma as UTS I could find is dated October 2004.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2010; 16:17 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a draft for Zapolyarny here, and although it is not finished, I am wondering, having done a rough outline for the Economy section, how this article should take shape. In wiritng it, I have become aware that basically everything I am writing applies to the NAO as a whole and that it is only specifics about Naryan-Mar that would not be suitable for the Zapolyarny. I was wondering whether you thought that sections such as the economy one I have written would be better off moved to the overall NAO page, with just a summary along the lines of; "oil and gas are the main economic drivers in the district, with reindeer husbandry still seen as a core part of the culture of the indigenous Nenets people". Otherwise I can see that I will write one thing in the Zapolyarny article and then, when I expand the NAO article I'll end up writing almost exactly the same stuff there and there doesn't seem much point in duplication. Your thoughts would be welcome. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, keep in mind that you are writing about the municipal district, so the municipal aspect is going to be the distinct difference from the materials about NAO as a whole (that, and the exclusion of the Naryan-Mar-specific info, of course). And yes, I know, it does not leave much to work with, but considering that the district was only formed a few years ago that's to be expected.
All in all, I agree that the economy/infrastructure sections would better be moved to the NAO article; and the district article can supply a very brief summary (preceded with a {{Main}} link to the NAO's economy section).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 20, 2010; 13:25 (UTC)
look, my talk page is full and i want to start a new page. i dont know how to do it. can u do it for me pls (u have full permission:-) thx! SuperzoharTalk17:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank u very much!!! i would like that bot that makes automatic archives if u can install it in my user or whatever procedure it should be....:-).... and also what is the reason i see in my userpage: "This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy"? SuperzoharTalk15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion notice got transcluded with the {{User wprh}} template you had on your page. The box was nominated because the project itself was merged into WP:RUSSIA. I took the liberty of removing the box from your page for now, but also fixed the MfD nomination, so feel free to restore it on your page if you wish.
As for the bots, let me see what's available there. You might, however, need to sign up for this yourself, because some bots require the request originates from the same account to which the talk page belongs. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2010; 15:41 (UTC)
I can't say I like that source very much. It seems to be a compilation of various sources by a website owner who collected that information for his own genealogical research. I don't suppose he made many (or any) mistakes while copying that info, but the point is that we cannot be sure whether he did or not. The best way is to get a hold of the originals of those sources and use them to expand the article. I've added this page to my to-do list and will see what I can do.
Sorry, I'm drawing a blank on this one. I'll keep it on my to do list in case something comes up, but currently I only have very basic information about this place. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2010; 13:32 (UTC)
You not bilieve me, but many years ago I knew Englisn more better, than I do now. Please, look at the artical again, if you have a time. I correctted a little. Thank you. Сергей Соковнин (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I believe you :) I'll go through this article more thoroughly some time this week. By the way, если вам удобнее, со мной можно по-русски.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2010; 17:29 (UTC)
The new Moskva (inhabited locality) disambiguation page doesn't appear to have any purpose - it doesn't disambiguate anything. The "Moskva, name of several other rural localities" listing doesn't belong on a dab page because it doesn't link to anything.
MOS:DAB explains that the purpose of disambiguation pages is purely to aid navigation to existing articles that contain meaningful information on the topic being disambiguated - hence the Types of inhabited localities in Russia, Russia, Village, and Tver Oblast links are inappropriate as they contain no mention of the term "Moskva"; likewise Penovsky District, as it is currently a redlink.
Hello there! Thank you for your concerns, but I have removed the speedy request for procedural reasons—the page in question is not a dab. In the future, I would recommend you study the guidelines you are applying in their entirety (here's the part you missed). Now, if you have concerns about the page being unreferenced or wish to see it expanded, please tag it accordingly; I'll be on it promptly. Otherwise I'll be getting to it in due time. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 27, 2010; 11:51 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed that you removed the top link to Dęblin. I think that a confusion between these different Ivangorod may happen, the polish Ivangorod has been an important russian strong point during the WWI and is always referenced in the bibliography with this name. Please note also that in the article about Dęblin, there is an extensive section about the former russian name:
In the years after the November Uprising the military significance of the Dęblin site, at the confluence of two important rivers, was noted. In the years 1838-1845 the Ivangorod fortress was constructed, sited to protect a crossing across the river Vistula. After 1859 the fortress was further expanded. In the early 1880s a railway line connecting Lublin with Silesia was built, with a bridge over the Vistula passing near the fortress, further enhancing its importance.
In 1854 the core of the present-day town, at its founding named the Irena colony, was established. It kept its name until 1953 when it was incorporated into the town of Dęblin.
The fortress played a role in World War I. In October, 1914 a significant battle was fought in its vicinity, in which the Russian armies repelled a combined German and Austro-Hungarian offensive. After that battle the defences of the fortress were further improved, and it became even more important as an anchor of the Russian position on the Vistula. However, reverses elsewhere along the front forced the Russians to abandon Ivangorod in August, 1915.--Schickaneder (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Schickaneder! I actually glanced over the Dęblin article before I removed the hat, but for the life of me I can't understand how I could miss the passage you cited above. Sorry about that! I have re-instated the hatnote, tweaking it slightly to make the connection more apparent. Thanks for catching this and correcting me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 29, 2010; 13:11 (UTC)
Hi Ëzhiki, thanks for the correction. Russia is a great and fascinating subject, and I'm glad when there is something new to discover or to learn. (Indeed, up to yesterday, I thought that there was only one Ivangorod, the one in Poland!!) Schickaneder (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are also four in Ukraine (although their names are romanized "Ivanhorod"), so that's another bit of trivia for you :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 29, 2010; 19:56 (UTC)
I don't believe I've been using {{otheruses3}} since its redirection to {{otheruses}} two weeks ago. You must be finding the templates I added prior to that happening. Can't do much about those. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 30, 2010; 20:52 (UTC)
Hello Ezhiki, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to 911 nightclub fire has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(A nightclub fire of this no. of fatalities is notable & received international coverage --look for additional refs under various names, in English and /Russian)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll raise this here rather than in the other discussion on Russavia's talk page. Over there, you accused me of making personal attacks, but when challenged to either provide evidence of this or retract, you did neither. Instead, you make a snide remark based on my user page, as Russavia had done before you. Do you consider this action becoming of an administrator? Kevin McE (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it plays out. First, you question my right to make a passing note on a talk page of an individual with whom I occasionally communicate ("I have no idea why a third party is involving themselves in a discussion on a usertalk page"). If you have "no idea", why not ask directly, instead of spouting indignation? Editors are not prohibited from commenting on the threads they had not originally been involved with. Second, "there is no surprise" to you that I would agree with Russavia, presumably because I am "the only person doing so on the userpage discussion that he claims as justification for these changes" and, of course, not because I am trying to explain something that had been satisfactorily explained in the past on more than one occasion. Third, after my explanation that following an established practice, albeit not explicitly documented as a guideline, is perfectly acceptable (we can't legislate every little action our users may think of performing), you alleged that the practice is in violation of an "established policy" (referring to WP:COMMONNAME). Then you alleged that Russavia and me "flout" the policy because we "disagree" with it. Please correct me if I got any of these wrong so far.
Later you call us a "small cohort" (and yes, I am aware of the meaning of the word, as well as of the fact that is not a verb, which is precisely why I placed nice little quote marks around "cohorting") trying to "over-rule a policy" (WP:COMMONNAME again) and accuse me of a "failure... to discuss the principles" and "blatant disregard for the concept of consensus". On that point I would like to remind you that consensus-building starts with two people agreeing on something. When a dissenting party (you) appears, the most prudent thing is for that party not to accuse the users in agreement of all sorts of ulterior motives, but to try and bring the issue for review by a broader audience, which is precisely what I recommended you do in the first place ("Village Pump is a good place to start"). You will be surprised how little attention such things attract, which is often why "consensus" is determined by "small cohorts" more often than it's healthy for the project of this scope.
After I, to the best of my ability, pointed out that WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with a choice of a disambiguator, you replied that "[c]ommonname is relevant, because it is when two people share the same common name that disambiguation between them is necessary". I'm sorry, but this explanation makes no sense to me whatsoever. Disambiguation issues are resolved by the disambiguation policies and guidelines, not by WP:COMMONNAME, and disambiguators are frequently chosen so the end result is nowhere near what would otherwise be a "common name".
I would admit that "personal attacks" is probably not the best description of your attitude and behavior. I do apologize for choosing a wrong term here. However, I in no way, shape, or form consider the manner in which you are providing comments as positive, collaborative, open-minded, thorough, or aimed to improve the project. It feels more like you are trying to prove a point at any expense, which, considering that you are "intolerant of everybody's errors except [your] own", is probably something you should be watching closer. Such attitude is never productive in Wikipedia.
There clearly is a problem with the practices various WikiProjects use. The right course of action is to determine how to best reconcile these differences, hopefully with minimal maintenance overhead for both parties involved, not to determine which side is "right" or whose WikiProject is bigger, or more important, or has more clout.
Regarding my Football Manager remark, a statement about Football Manager is prominently posted on your own user page for the public to see. Why you considered my comment offensive is beyond me—I see nothing wrong with expecting an individual who "spends far too much time playing Football Manager" to be intricately familiar with the biographical details of various soccer players. I spend far too much time trying to organize information about Russian administrative divisions, which is quite clear from my userpage, and I wouldn't imagine taking offense if somebody assumed that I would be able to instantly recognize which entry corresponds to which administrative division in the search box drop-down menu! If you consider this "snide", you would perhaps be better off by removing this fact from your page, so people do not inadvertently offend you by mentioning it during discussion.
So, to summarize, the answer to your question is "yes". However, please don't hesitate to contact me directly should you have any further inquiries.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2010; 18:42 (UTC)
You and Russavia personalised the discussion: sourcing sarcastic argument from light hearted comment on one's user page seems to me to be low. I did not "question your right" to do anything. You have demonstrably more history of involvement of disambiguation of Russian names than I, and have previously been party to discussion about the at least occasional controversy involved. So I am assuming you can refer me to the discussions that you have instigated or participated in to resolve such difficulties at VP or WP:Disambiguation. If not, perhaps we can try to agree a formulation of the problem that presents both sides of the argument, and invites the community (or whatever small part of it might express an opinion) to move towards a more widely held consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I'm not Russavia's mother, I can't really help you with regards to his behavior or motivation. For my part, I assure you that not a single one of my comments was intended to be sarcastic. If you could point me to a comment of mine which you believe is steeped in sarcasm, it would be greatly appreciated. On the other hand, if you choose to interpret a personal remark (and, as I explained above, a positive one at that) as a personal attack, I'm afraid I can't help you there.
As for my history of involvement with the disambiguation of Russian names, that should not come as a surprise considering that I am a) Russian; b) involved with WP:RUSSIA; c) routinely running into articles about Russian people which need to be disambiguated, and d) faced with a profound lack of interest on behalf of the rest of the community regarding the matter (people tend not to take interest in issues which do not affect their area of editing). One of the reasons I recommended that you start a discussion at VP, because my previous attempts over the past years to raise an interest in this and other related subjects failed miserably, and I hoped that a new person would be able to word an inquiry in a manner that would spark a more lively debate. In the meanwhile, work needed to be done, so the course of action that made sense for biographical articles within the scope of WP:RUSSIA was devised (although, unfortunately, never documented). Such things happen quite often, because many projects are both specialized and undermanned. Between "instigating a discussion" on a minor technical issue for the umpteenth time and getting actual work done, actual work wins with me every time. Incompatibility problems should be addressed when they arise, but the positive thing is indeed to "formulate the problem" first, and not start spouting accusations that the other party "flouts the policies" or "fails to discuss the principles" in response to a friendly suggestion to consider the background information first. I was absolutely disgusted by this response to my comment that merely tried to shed more light on the situation and point out that the consequences are much larger than your original concern suggested. I don't suppose you'd be willing to apologize for the attitude, but at least you shouldn't be acting surprised that things went downhill from there.
That said, if you are willing to stop this pointless bickering (I most certainly am), I am more than open to starting the discussion from the clean slate and continue to the point where we formulate the problem and then propose and discuss possible solutions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 4, 2010; 20:13 (UTC)
First of all, happy 9th of May! (Since you are on your trip, it will be read later). Also, can you find any Moscow related DYK's for the portal? I'm a bit clueless on how to get them. Sincerely, Buggie111 (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't know an easy way to find what you need. In an ideal world, WP:RUSSIA would be tracking all of its DYKs, but in reality it just ain't so. A possible solution would be to harness this tool—select "Article lists" in the column to the left, enter "Russia" into the "Project" field and 0 into the "Page namespace" field (0 stands for main article space), click the "filter by category" checkbox, and enter "Wikipedia Did you know articles" into the "Talk page category" field. Check "Don't try to compute an overall count" checkbox (it helps speed things up; or at least not abort the query prematurely). Click "Generate list". It takes an awful long time to run, but eventually you'll get a list of all WikiProject Russia's articles which have a DYK banner on the talk page. However, you'll need to review them individually to see which ones would work for the Moscow Portal. Hope this helps at least to some extent! You might also want to ask around at the Village Pump in case someone knows a better solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 20:56 (UTC)
Because I know how much you like going away on holiday, only to come back and find that someone (usually me) has gone and messed with things you often use, I would like to welcome you back with {{WikiProject Russia}} - the only function that doesn't yet work is the needs-cyrillic, but this will hopefully be done by the time you get back. Enjoy your new toy PMSL. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trip was pretty good (still a wee bit foggy from all that rum); sure beats coming back to the office and having piles of work saved up especially for me. Grrr...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 01:43 (UTC)
Rum...err...yeah...riiiiight...rum. 2,600 views for a non-lead hook which relates to Russia isn't too bad I think. Of course, if you had a wealth of propaganda to be able to spray the article with (you know, photos, videos, etc) that may have helped a little bit :D --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak03:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you know, I don't think they've yet invented a camera with a zoom powerful enough to take good-quality pictures of Russia from where I am located... and I'm still working on that spy satellite in my garage... as you can imagine, parts are hard to come by.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 03:51 (UTC)
Hmmm, on one hand, New Zealand is one of the places I'd love to visit some day. On the other, I don't fancy going through the US Customs with the satellite spikes protruding out of my ass...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 13:18 (UTC)
Spikes in ass? I cringe at the thought LOL. Ezhiki once again an Almaty town is up for the nuke just days after them all being speedily kept. Any chance you could dig something up on this in an old Soviet census or paper. I'd imagine its an emerging settlement, a southeastern suburn of Almaty. See map, Possibly it is in "Talgar Raion" or whatever, its very close to Talgar. Dr. BlofeldWhite cat20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have much on Kazakhstan, but I added one ref to source the Kazakh spelling and its administrative status in 1987. By the way, whoever pointed out that this Birlik is not the only one in Kazakhstan is right—according to my source, there were at least three more villages by this name elsewhere in the country. Might want to move it to a less ambiguous title later. I'll also check if I have more on Kazakhstan when I come back home tonight.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2010; 20:42 (UTC)
That's great. Yes being in southeastern Kazakhstan I can imagine there isn't much on it. Thanks for that. If you look on a google map it really looks more substantial than a lot of the villages you see. I'm just pretty annoyed that the article was renominated just a week after it was speedily kept that's all.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only put "village" in because that's what my source identifies the place as. If it was since promoted to an urban-type settlement or a town, I wouldn't know. As for your frustration, I understand perfectly. I could never fully understand the reasons why someone would so much want to get the (verifiable) geo-stubs deleted. In the former SU, every single district had a local lore museum. Some were more boring than others, but they always had plenty of info on the local histories. Libraries were also everywhere, and each had its own local history section. Heck, the small town I myself am from had a whole damn shelf, and the place wasn't even a hundred years old when I was a kid!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2010; 20:54 (UTC)
With all due respect, those shells are a hassle. They are a necessary evil when there are four or more project banners on a talk page, but for three or fewer the benefit and space savings are really marginal. Just another click a person needs to make in order to get to the underlying banners. As for the talkheader, it may have an occasional positive impact on the talk pages of truly controversial articles, but seeing it on each and every talk page pretty much reduces its benefit to zero. You are welcome to disagree, of course. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 20, 2010; 22:43 (UTC)
Там есть одна правка, которую я не стал восстанавливать, потому что в ней ничего, кроме добавления тэга CSD не было. А как хоть файл на Commons-то называется, куда этот перенесли?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 26, 2010; 12:42 (UTC)
Понятия не имею. Загрузивший пропал. Если появится, пожалуйста, восстановите снова и заставьте его поставить шаблон с лицензией =))) --TarzanASG (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will, in due time. However, if there are any particular fields you desperately need filled out now, please let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 13:21 (UTC)
Generally yes, but in this case WP:ENGVAR also comes into play. Just because the author of administrative centre preferred the Commonwealth spelling does not automatically mean that all articles linking to it should utilize it as well. Additionally, {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} is used in articles which predominantly use the American spelling, so your change introduces mass inconsistency as well. Linking through a redirect in this case is fine or, if it really bugs you, you can pipe the link through using [[administrative centre|administrative center]]. Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 24, 2010; 20:08 (UTC)
Загрузил в commons очередную свою фотографию и указал Копирайт под своим реальным именем, а не сетевым Ником по ряду причин юридического характера. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tyumen_Muravlenko_Monument_GiproTNG.jpg
Получил сообщение This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because the information on its source or copyright status is disputed. Попытался разрулить с тем кто инициировал эту песню, он отсылает писать письма в ОТРС. В обзщественное достояние фотографии я не отдам, только Creative commons и только под реальным именем. Можно как то негеморройно привязать Ник к реальному имени, чтобы навсегда снять подобные вопросы? Мои предшествующий опыт показывает что ОТРС писать практичеки бессмысленно - у них явный перегруз и пока они рассматривают письма фотки уже успевают прибить - я сталкнулся с этим когда пытался авторизровать корпоративные фотографии для англоязычной статьи о Тюмени, как официальный представитель компании - толко время зря убил. К моменту получения подтеерждения от ОТРС фотки из Вики уже несколько недель как вытерли... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romualdas Arm (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Я хочу сразу предупредить, что по копирайтам вообще и по Commons в частности у меня тройка с большим жирным минусом :) Поэтому если в нижеприведённом совете я вам чего-нибудь навру, не обессудьте.
Фотографию на удаление выставили не из-за проблем с собственно фотографией, а из-за проблем с тем, что на этой фотографии изображено. Памятник Муравленко находится под копирайтом, а по российским законам о свободе панорамы фотографию такого объекта распространять под свободной лицензией нельзя. Если копирайт на памятник скульптор передал компании, возле которой он расположен, то представитель компании может сообщить об этом в OTRS. К лицензии самой фотографии это всё отношения не имеет, поскольку является вопросом отдельным.
В общем, подозреваю, что без OTRS обойтись вам не удастся. А что касается их медлительности, то если фотографию удалят, её всегда можно будет перезагрузить после выяснения бюрократических деталей.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 26, 2010; 12:50 (UTC)
Спасибо, теперь понятна хотя бы суть проблемы. Завтра пойду к шефу и поинтересуюсь как договаривались на эту тему со скульптором и договаривались ли вообще - бюст сделан в 2003 году по заказу и на деньги фирмы.--Romualdas Arm (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, it's notable alright—there is an article about it in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (GSE), and its circulation was around 400,000 in the 1970s. And by the way, it still exists, although they dropped the "Sovetskaya" moniker from the title in 1991 (so it's just Kultura now). Here is their website, and here is a short blurb they wrote about themselves.
As for the GSE article, you can find its copy here. However, I don't quite understand why they would say that the paper was "established in 1973", and at the same time mention that a paper "of the same name" was published in 1953–1972. I wonder if there was a change of publisher in 1973. Also, according to the paper's website, they were established in 1929, possibly referring to the predecessor paper called Sovetskoye Iskusstvo (Soviet Art).
Thanks Ezhiki. It gets depressing at times the exent of notable content that is missing from english wikipedia. Just not enough hours in the day to get done what we want... I'll make a start on this article, from what I gather it was established in 1929 according to the website and was known as something until 1972 and then revamped/change of publisher etc..Dr. BlofeldWhite cat13:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was known as "something" until 1953, not 1972 :) But, I would just go with the GSE. The website doesn't even mention the "Sovetskaya Kultura" title on the page I linked to.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2010; 13:18 (UTC)
No biggie. I guess it was better known under its old name anyway. The current circulation is paltry ~25K; quite a drop!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2010; 13:42 (UTC)
Here a couple of Soviet apologists defenders of the Motherland is driving the discussion in an exceedingly strange direction, and the only voice of reason there is not particularly active. Did you know ...that Alfred Rosenberg had something to do with the ethnic demography of the Soviet Union? Well, I didn't. Could you please chime in with some explanation of core Wikipedia policies (maybe I need this too)? The current state of affairs is not particularly constructive. Colchicum (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could read a lecture or two on policies and guidelines with regards to the discussion in the section immediately above the one titled "Section break", but that train has long since sailed. Regarding the discussion that follows, I really don't see why you feel my (or any other independent third-party observer's) involvement is necessary. Granted, the discussion is a bit tenser that it probably should have been, but considering the scope and the level of controversy of the subject being discussed I'd say you folks are doing exceptionally well. The discussion is progressing, points and counter-points are being made, and the overall balance of the thread is more constructive than not. I see no good reason to get my butt in between the parties involved and start moralizing (nor is that a prospect I'd be looking forward to). Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 13:06 (UTC)
Thanks. Regarding the list, there is a great number of ways in which it can be improved. First off, I don't really see the value of the list showing the rate only for one incomplete year. Year-by-year trending would be far more valuable. If there are sources with the trends analysis, they'd be a great addition, too. Secondly, the list could use some formatting: for example, we don't use the overly ambiguous term "regions" when referring to the federal subjects of Russia, there is no need to list the names of the federal subjects in both English and Russian (instead, the English names should be linked to appropriate articles), citations need to be made explicit (rather than being an in-text mention of the source from which the numbers came), and the words "unemployment rate" in the title should not be capitalized. There's probably more, but these were immediately obvious upon the very first look.
If you need help with fixing any of these, please let me know. I probably won't be able to help you with the sources and trending (the subject of the list just doesn't interest me all that much), but I'll be happy to help with the technical side of the matters. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 13:14 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added these to my to-do list. I also moved the article because there are two places called "Kokino" in Bryansk Oblast.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 13:21 (UTC)
Hello, I have stumbled upon your 2006 in television page. I have helped you on it by editing 2000 television air dates and added: Hamtaro. Please don't delete it. I was just helping you adding an animated show that started airing and running on 2000. Hamtaro Status: 2000-2006. Status: Ended. NOTE: Original Air Date started on 2000 for Japan version of hamtaro. The first english episode aired on 2002-2006. Japanese & English Episodes Both stopped running on 2006. But Japanese started their first episode on 2000. English started first episode on 2002. And both ended on 2006 (reruns ended). Sincerely, Beamer103 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Beamer! I pretty much stopped editing those pages a couple years ago, mostly because there are other subjects which interested me more. I would, however, like to note that there exists a whole series on television in Japan, including 2006 in Japanese television. You might want to consider adding your entries there instead. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 2, 2010; 13:49 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. What was background for the Ukase? Did those cities represented uyezds? What was prigorodki? I know it is not mentioned for Kiev Governorate, but apparently it is some sort of a classification. I will get to it and appreciate your consideration. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That ukase is the very first one which established the governorates on the territory of Russia. It is interesting in that there were actually no borders of the governorates established, but rather each governorate was defined as a set of cities/towns. The uyezds were actually abolished at the same time. There's a little more about it here, although it's all unsourced (I know, I know... laziness is not a virtue :)).
"Prigorodki" were side-towns administered by posadniks from the larger cities; basically suburbs of those cities, although sometimes the distances were quite big. Pskov, for example, was considered to be the prigorodok of Veliky Novgorod until mid-14th century.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 2, 2010; 13:41 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki, thanks for cleaning up some of my edits. I just have a few questions. So when I tried to add Vesyoloye to the template of cities and towns, does that only refer to города and городские поселения, and not села? I only just now realized that none of the links in the template were defined as a село in the Russian Wikipedia. Also, what is a sort key, the thing that I tried to remove from the Sochi article?
I know you're probably busy, but if you could take a look at the article on Vesyoloye that I created (it's my first article here), that would be great! LanguageLaboratory (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Города and городские поселения are different things :) To be completely precise, the template lists all inhabited localities which have a city/town status. You can find that list, for example, in OKATO, to name one place. Rural localities like Vesyoloye are not included simply because there are just too damn many of them—in Krasnodar Krai, for example, there are over 1,700; imagine trying to fit them all into one template! :)
The sort key tells the system how to sort the entries in the category. When the sort key is left blank, it means that this particular entry will be sorted first in the list—if you take a look at Category:Sochi, you'll see that the Sochi entry is listed first (as it is the main topical article in the category). Removing the sort key will simply lead to Sochi being listed by default (under "S"). Not a big deal, but something to remember.
As for Vesyoloye, I did add it to my to-do list. Can't promise to get to it soon, but for an article about a minor Russian village I assure you it is better than average. Thanks for taking time to create it!
All in all, if you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to contact me—I'm always happy to help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 2, 2010; 21:17 (UTC)
Much thanks for the thorough response, Ezhiki! One last question. In the Vesyoloye article I still have the template for the Krasnodar cities/towns at the bottom of the article. Would it make sense to keep the template in the article since the town is located in Krasnodar Krai, or should the template only be put on pages of города/городские поселения that link back to the template? LanguageLaboratory (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, any time. As for the template, it's a navigational template, and navigational templates are supposed to navigate between the articles the template covers, not between all related topics, so the answer is no, the template does not belong in the article about Vesyoloye. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 3, 2010; 00:55 (UTC)
On June 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kultura (newspaper), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I actually commented above (in the main area preceding the subnoms), but looks this has already been closed properly. Thanks for the heads-up anyway!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki. Greetings; hope you are well. Neither Russian nor English wikipedia has an entry for ru:Мариновка (Волгоградская область). Russian wikipedia does have an entry for the air base near the town, but I thought a whole town is more important than one airbase, so wanted to bring this to your attention. Is it important enough to need quick rectification? Kind regards from New Zealand, Buckshot06(talk)10:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's just one of the countless villages in Volgograd Oblast; there really is nothing special about it. I've created a Marinovka set index for navigation; let me know if you want a (very) basic stub on the Volgograd Oblast village as well. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2010; 13:57 (UTC)
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
I thought I'd poke you on this first to get your input... What do you think about if all the Tuvan kozhuun pages were renamed from their transliterated Russian names to their English names (which seem to be typically the transliterated Tuvan name)? As I was editing the kozhuun pages, the Russian names for English seemed a bit awkward. Probably this is because I check up on Tuvan news in English at the tuvaonline.ru site and they always print like "Ulug-Khem district", not "Ulug-Khemsky kozhuun". Another example http://en.tuvaonline.ru/2010/02/14/4300_dzut.html But I'm not entirely certain as to if there is a set English name. I did find this academic paper that is using the transliterated Tuvan name for English http://pisum.bionet.nsc.ru/kosterin/tuva_idf.htm And I do know that Tuvan bands don't use the Russian names on their websites http://www.alashensemble.com/Ayan-ool_Sam.htm and http://tyvakyzy.com/2006/12/11/choduraa_tumat.html --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Stacey! Glad you asked.
I would actually be against such a move, because the current titles of the kozhuun articles are what they are per our romanization guidelines, which, in turn, are based on BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian; the latter being the most common romanization system used in the English language. So, as far as the academic standards go, the existing titles are correct.
As for the sources you mentioned, note how they all come from Tyva and are written by Russian/Tuvan speakers. I can very well imagine how they would not be aware of the BGN/PCGN conventions, nor are they expected to comply with it if they did, so, when writing in English, they would be using the spelling which sounds least alien to them—which in this case happens to be transliterated Tuvan. Problem with that approach is, what sounds least alien to them would not necessarily be the best choice for our target audience—the Anglophones seeking encyclopedic information. Hence the guidelines.
That said, I think it would still be a good idea to set up the transliterated Tuvan names as redirects to the existing titles—the more variants we can collect, the better.
I would also consider moving those articles from "Fooysky Kozhuun" to "Fooysky District". Kozhuun is not an English word (at least not according to the criteria laid out in WP:RUS), and it pretty unambiguously translates as "district" (not to mention the fact that the Tuvan law on the administrative-territorial structure equates the two corresponding Russian terms), so as per WP:UE, it makes sense to change that part. Before that's done, however, the kozhuun article itself needs to be merged into raion (which is an English loanword).
Anyway, I hope I addressed your query to your satisfaction. I'll be more than happy to hear more on this from you should you have further questions or ideas. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 13:25 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I think I mislead you a bit by writing "transliteration". What the issue is to me is whether to use the Russian name or the Tuvan name of the districts for the name in English. Currently they're all using the Russian name which can transliterate differently from the Tuvan name using WP:RUS. For example: Өвүр кожуун is Tuvan while Овюрский кожуун is Russian. Tuvan and Russian are both official languages there and we run into the issue of multiple local names. Tuva Online, a local news agency, uses the Russian names in their Russian-language articles and the Tuvan names (transliterated) in their English-language articles.
WP:RUS is actually very specific on the choice of the source language--see item 7 of the "Place names" section. The explanation given there is a bit lame and incomplete, but it is true nevertheless—geographic names are always romanized from Russian, because that's an accepted practice (and not just for Tyva). Our WP:UE→WP:RUS guideline chain complies with that practice, which is the way it should be. Furthermore, a handful of online sources (such as Tuva Online or a local news agency) are not indicative of "established English usage", especially considering the fact that neither of those sources is independent of the subject and that they likely operate using their own ideas of what "proper usage" should be. That may be fine for their purposes, but it certainly is not fine for ours—our guidelines are supposed to be rooted in specific, documented, and preferably widely adopted practices. BGN/PCGN romanization is one such practice. What Tuva Online et al. use is not.
We shouldn't be looking at each kozhuun name individually and cross-check whether it matches the majority of spelling used by some outside websites; that would simply defeat the purpose of standardization and lead to all kinds of different problems later on (what if Tuva Online switches to different spellings one month from now? What if different sources use widely different spellings equally? Which sources are acceptable to borrow a spelling from and which are not? The list goes on and on...). Does this help clarify my point?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 18, 2010; 13:59 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for pointing out WP:RUS #7. It was a guidline like that I was looking for and I seemed to miss that earlier. Given that, I think I'm going to go ahead and fix up the names, changing kozhuun to district, creating redirects for the Tuvan names, and merging the kozhuun article into raion. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do that myself next week, but thanks for volunteering :) Would you be interested in doing the same for ulus (term) (and moving the articles about the Sakha uluses accordingly? Also, a quick pointer (in case you didn't know, it'll save you time and effort)—you don't need to change the existing redirects (and there are quite a few of those), because they'll be taken care of by the bot. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 18, 2010; 15:03 (UTC)
One can't rename a category. You need to list it on WP:CfD. If you are not comfortable doing it, please let me know, I'll list it myself when I return next week. Thanks much for doing the rest of the cleanup!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 18, 2010; 20:31 (UTC)
I think the Kozhuun article can be expanded instead of merged or merged into a different article than raion. Kozhuun comes from the Mongolian word for banner (khoshuu) and is an historic administrative division. There's also info in this wiki about banners and the Manchu banner system that I found in a category of administrative divisions (I was surprised to learn that Byzantines also had banners). You should put your Tuvan law information somewhere so that it is clear that today the word is used synonymously with district or raion. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the kozhuun article, I am a bit hesitant to leave it there. It's not good to have an article under a title which is not even a valid English word. Perhaps, if the Tuvan administrative aspect is merged into raion and the historical aspect is merged elsewhere (a subsection in history of Tuva perhaps), then it would make sense to have a disambig there, but an "article"... I don't know. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 19:20 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but existing poor practices are not a good enough reason to proliferate them even further. If there's a way to get rid of at least some of those, we should be pursuing it. With dzongkhags, for example, the existing article on the term could work great as an intro to the districts of Bhutan list, especially if one wanted to make the latter featured some day. This exact approach might not work for other similar articles, but there are always other ways to handle this if mind is put to the task.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 19:51 (UTC)
Let me sit on it for a couple more days and think. Unless some great idea shines on me, I'll probably merge it into the administrative divisions of Tuva article ("districts of Tuva" would just be its subset, and the "administrative divisions" deals mostly with the districts anyway), while retaining a short blurb in the raion article as well. In the meanwhile, if you have any other ideas, please let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 20:28 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Yemelyanovsky requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. $Max Viwe$ (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag. I see no way how this can possibly qualify under A1. Notice also the category this list is in and the type of the page. I will, however, be happy to address any requests for clarification on the talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2010; 15:21 (UTC)
Привет! Возникла странная статья - не знаю как бороться с явлением. Сабж не существовал в принципе, по крайней мере нигде в более-менее серьезной литературе не упоминался. Самое интересное, что дана ссылка на Татарскую энциклопедию, вот я держу книгу в руках -и там нет такой статьи. Вопрос собственно, какие критерии для удаления я могу предъявить - ведь многие мои статьи ссылаются на тот же источник, который в принципе для большинства английских википедиство в принципе непроверяем! --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә?Ә!) 16:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Да чего тут бороться, ставьте на удаление и все дела. Источник проверили? Проверили. Оказалась неправда. Другие источники указаны? Не указаны. Найти другие источники пытались? Пытались. То есть в чистом остатке имеем отсутствие источников (unsourced) и невозможность проверить факты (unverifiable). Прямая дорога этой статье в AfD.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 18, 2010; 16:48 (UTC)
Thanks, Mike. I've tweaked the note somewhat so it better complies with the terminology we use across the Wikipedia. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2010; 17:37 (UTC)
I saw from another discussion somewhere else that you had most of the books listed on Soldat.ru. I'm interested in researching the Soviet Air Defence Forces - are there any ADF books there? Buckshot06(talk)23:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm afraid you misunderstood. I don't have most of the books they have. I have a very large library of books on the administrative divisions, with which the soldat's collection of ATD books has a great deal of overlap, but I don't have books on any other subjects they have. Of the books I own, none are on the subject of the SADF.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 25, 2010; 13:15 (UTC)
Hello. Remembering your help on wikilinking, any idea how I could copy a list from imdb here and put it into year order. Its backwards at the moment. Any idea how it can be reversed?Dr. BlofeldWhite cat19:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't have Excel, right? A sorting like this would be a pain in the ass to perform even in Excel, but at least I have a vague idea of how it could be done. With Word only, I don't think you can do it. Sorry! There's only so much magic you can do with Word.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 6, 2010; 14:03 (UTC)
Hi, Ngoc! Sorry for the delayed response; I am usually not on-wiki during the weekends and holidays (and the past three days were both). Do you still need help with this? I usually decline translation requests due to never having enough time for them, but this particular petition doesn't look too long, and as long as you don't need it urgently, I can probably do it within a week or so. Will that work for you? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 6, 2010; 14:09 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki: Thank you very much for your response. Yes, we still need a Russian version of the petition texts. The time frame you suggested is quite fine to us. Our email address: nthfoundation@yahoo.com
I have sent the translation to this email address this morning. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 14:27 (UTC)
That's possible, but there are downsides. If one mistake crawls into a template, or if you make one when creating the stubs and copy it over, it's easier to have it fixed for one federal subject and take extra care when moving on to the next one as opposed to having to fix it in every single district article for ten federal subjects in a row. Moving fast has its drawbacks, you know :) At any rate, as usual, thanks for your help; it is very much appreciated!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 7, 2010; 13:46 (UTC)
Thanks. He has uploaded some nice photos too. I was wondering if your database would allow you to generate a list of Selsoviets or third-level divisions by oblast. Like a series Third-level administrative divisions of Buryatia etc. Even if it will be years before we have articles on them I think lists of them by district and oblast with population/area figures would be very beneficial. What do you think? I'd like to have access to a list of them even if they are red linked... I'm considering creating Template:Third-level administrative divisions of Russia and drawing up a list by oblast.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat13:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heres an example of what I mean. I'm thinking it would be possible to create tabled lists like the following by oblast:
Name
Division type
District
Population (2002)
Area (sq. km)
Seat
Kharog
Selsoviet
Blofeld District
13, 456
145
Leminsk
Yes, both the selsoviets and the corresponding rural settlements are in the database. Creating set indices on those is actually my first project after the database is finished, although I am still thinking about the best ways to go about those. So far I'm leaning to creating the set indices with redirects to the administrative/municipal composition sections of the appropriate districts. Then we'll be able to put the basic info into those sections without having to create ~20,000 substubs on each individual selsoviet. Of course, should someone have more than basic info about any given selsoviet/rural settlement, a separate article can always be created then. What do you think?
As for something like Template:Third-level administrative divisions of Russia, I should tell you that there's a lot more work there than meets the eye. Each federal subject of Russia has its own way of going about those (e.g., not everywhere they are called selsoviets, in some FSs selsoviets co-exist with other types of divisions, in others selsoviets don't even exist any more; plus, you need to cross-reference the selsoviets with the corresponding rural settlements, and not in all FSs they correspond 1:1; then there is that whole masculine/neuter/feminine naming mess... you get my drift? :)). Once the database is done, such a cross-walk can be created fairly easily (because all of the relations and terminology are properly documented); with a manual approach, it's just going to be one big mess... even with the example above, I count so many problems it makes me cringe to think them multiplied by 20,000 (or even by 238, if you only do Buryatia)... Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 13:38 (UTC)
Yuck it can so it getting complicated with overlapping/ redundant units and uncertainties. Russian subdivisions have to be so damn difficult, why can't they simply have municipalities like other country? I know the reason why in that the country is so enormous that oblasts have different customs.. 20,000 selsoviets is a LOT. But the first step towards it would be drawing up lists with some basic info rather than seperate articles I think. This would better be done by automation than manually of course. How long will it take for you to complete the database? As I think it will be very important for sorting this out.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, rural settlements are municipalities (are nicely/consistently structured/named they are, too); they are just added on top of the existing administrative divisions, which are not nicely/consistently structured/named :)
As for the database, here's where I'm at. There are 83 federal subjects that need to be covered. As of today, the database covers 40 FSs, which are in perfect order, and another 27 which need further review/clarification/amendment/updating (that's not too difficult of a task, though). Most of the remaining 16 are not in there mostly because the necessary sources are simply not yet available, although I am gradually adding the partial info as it becomes available.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 13:55 (UTC)
I don't want to start on the forty, because it's easier to do everything properly once than to have to update hundreds of pages every time additional info for new FSs becomes available... which will leave significantly less time for me to work on the database... it's a vicious circle I don't want to enter. Patience and focus pay, you know :)
When I will be 100% done, I don't know. When those sixteen FSs pass the missing laws I need is obviously not something in my control. On the bright side, I am on the finish line for some of the datasets (e.g., the lists of rural settlements are available for all 83 FSs; I just need to finish the data entry for the missing 16). Rest assured, I am neither slacking nor procrastinating; things are just taking longer than I anticipated. Honestly, had I known three years ago when I just started working on this blasted database just how much time and effort it is going to cost, I probably would have never even started the project in the first place. Lucky for y'all, once I start something, I don't stop until it's all done (unless I die first, that is :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 14:45 (UTC)
At least 2015 then by the sounds of it. If you are waiting for data to be complete for the missing 16 it may be 2025! I'll remain patient, some day though it would be nice to see Russia properly organized and ordered on here though but we just don't have the contributors on the scale we really need...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat14:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shoot myself well before 2015, if I see it's going to be taking that long! :) I'm not planning to sit on my ass doing nothing and wait while those 16 FSs pass the laws I need either. Any missing information I do not yet have can be substituted by the data from OKATO. The reasons why I'm waiting are because despite technically being a "reliable source" (by our definitions) OKATO sucks big when it comes to actual accuracy and timely updates and because there is some other good-quality data which I can occupy myself with. While I'm working on the data entry, there's a chance some other missing pieces will appear, and I can get to work on that (when I started to work on the database, I only had good data for perhaps a dozen FSs). Once I run out of those, however, I'll start filling the missing pieces with the OKATO data. So don't you despair just yet :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 15:14 (UTC)
I was thinking of producing copy-paste lists locally using the database and entering them manually into Wikipedia for a while (as to make sure the process flow is OK). After the process is polished and we make sure that there is not going to be something unexpected hindering with automation, someone will need to program a bot (I don't have skills for that part) and finish the job. If for some reason automation turns out to be unfeasible, then we'll dump the core onto a maintenance page, break the work into manageable pieces, write up detailed instructions, and call for volunteers (you are already signed up as #1 in that list, did you know? :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 16:24 (UTC)
GaneshBot may be up for it at a later date, depends on who is still around when you are ready to do it..... Shame Fritzpoll is no longer with us... If you can demonstrate that referenced articles can be create I'm sure you'll find somebody to run a bot... Dr. BlofeldWhite cat16:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell him they are extremely well appreciated and to have a complete set of decent pin maps (with locator window) would massively improve quality...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat14:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think he knows :) I, too, hope he's not going to run out of steam before finishing the project... or we'll be stuck with yet another incomplete set of maps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 9, 2010; 14:31 (UTC)
You are quite right on the first two points and yes, of course you can use a variant of English of your choice when creating content. The caveat you are missing is that in articles without US/UK ties (such as those about Russia) you are expected to conform with the variant the first major contributor to that article chose. If the article is already using the US spelling, you are expected to use US spelling as well, even if you are expanding the article ten-fold. It just so happens that most of the existing articles about Russia use the US spelling, which is why I run into the necessity of correcting your edits so often. Hope this clarifies the issue. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 18:37 (UTC)
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
У меня просьба, можете спросить у Uwe Dedering, как он делает такие карты. У меня в SRTM получаются слишком кислотные цвета. Пробовал слоями накладывать полупрозрачный фон, играться с гаммой, но оттенки поймать не могу. --Виктор В (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. В Natural Earth для суъектов РФ получается слишком низкая детализация --Виктор В (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
С утра пораньше генерить вопросы наверно не стоит . Ссылку не на ту карту дал и в Uwe Dedering немца не опознал. Просить человека знающего английский перевести мою просьбу на немецкий, как то очень своеобразно... --Виктор В (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uwe вроде бы говорит по-английски... Я спрошу, дайте только мне ссылку на его карту, в которую можно было бы тыкнуть пальцем и сказать "хочу такую же" :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2010; 13:41 (UTC)
Hello. I created this. Can you fig out a Russian source or two? Also on Russian wikipedia they seme to be called it the "Chita Region". Any thoughts?Dr. BlofeldWhite cat18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you were aware, but there was a discussion about these guys at the Administrator's noticeboard a few days ago, in relation to incomplete maintenance when the diplomat's page was created. Towards the end of it, a decision was consciously taken to name the DAB at Andrei. The discussion in its entirety can be found here. Regards -- WFC (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification (and no, I was not aware of that discussion; I just happened to hit this particular page during my normal maintenance/assessment rounds), but judging from the thread you linked to, no one pointed out that using the "Andrei" spelling in the disambig page title is contrary to bullet 9 of the WP:RUS#People guideline. Note, however, that the clause does not apply to the individual entries, which should be reviewed individually according to the rest of criteria outlined in WP:RUS#People. Indeed, I found no reason to move elsewhere any of the two entries listed on that page. Hope this helps. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 21:23 (UTC)
I agree that no-one pointed out the guideline. But if the two individuals are both left at Andrei, it seems counterintuitive not to WP:IAR for the DAB. Regards -- WFC (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree. The main reason is to achieve consistency within the broader scope, not to mention the fact that the article about the actual name is located at Andrey (per the same guideline). Plus, there are redirects in place which address the concern about the approach being counterintuitive.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2010; 21:34 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. I edited the introduction in an attempt to explain the ambiguity to someone who might not be familiar with the conventions of translating Russian names. Regards--WFC (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no objections to that edit. We normally don't do that (some names have dozens, even hundreds of transliteration variants; that's why we have a guideline to standardize on just one), but in this particular case I think the exception is warranted. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2010; 13:29 (UTC)
Hi, I see you changed Alexei to Alexey. I can see the transliteration page you linked to, but it seems to me it makes no sense to use a spelling the author himself does not use; see here, for example (his official literary agency page). I personally think the page should be reverted to the spelling I originally used, but I will leave that up to you, since you clearly have more Wikiseniority; what I want to bring to your attention is that when I tried to redirect the Alexei spelling to your new one, I got a red link, so the Alexey spelling is apparently not recognized by the system. I don't know what this means, but I'm bringing it to your attention. Languagehat (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note, but please don't base your decisions on "wikiseniority" or other some such concept—I have no more "seniority" than you or any other editor does (although I probably have more experience with romanization issues than many other editors out there).
Regarding Ivanov, you are welcome to revert this change. This article was just one of several which happened to be a part of my maintenance/cleanup/assessment daily run. When I consider moving an article, I base the decision largely on the sources already present in the article. If there are no sources (or if the sources used do not make it clear which romanization variant is preferable), I move the article in accordance with the default provision of WP:RUS ([i]n absence of verifiable documentation, romanization produced by the default guideline must be used). This, of course, does not mean that the move cannot be undone; on the contrary, should new sources surface (like the OKNO link you provided), the article needs to be moved accordingly.
The very purpose of WP:RUS "default provision" is to have a standard which can be followed in situations when the "conventional name" cannot easily be established. This way, we have a predictable standardization method which can be used until experts in the subject matter (like, in this case, you) can clarify the situation.
On future occasions, should you encounter a similar move with which I am involved, please do not hesitate to move the article back (or to wherever it belongs) and document the move by adding sources or by noting the reasoning on the article's talk page. There's no need to "ask for my permission" (so to speak), or even to notify me, but if you have doubts and could use a clarification, I, of course, will be happy to chime in. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 19:56 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess I'm a little touchy because I've had run-ins with editors who seemed to feel they had divine authority on which I was daring to tread. I guess I'll revert it, then, and add the OKNO link. Thanks for being so reasonable! Languagehat (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I just like to straighten things out as I stumble upon them, is all. That occasionally means some hassle (like moving articles back and forth), but I think in the long run it's well worth it. Thanks for creating content, by the way—I wish more of those "divinely authorized" editors tried it every once in a while. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 20:35 (UTC)
Oh, great. I tried moving it back, and got "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." I suppose that's because I created a redirect for Alexei. If you can untangle this mess, I'd be much obliged! Languagehat (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict). I have moved the article—the mess is all my fault anyway, so it's only fair I fix it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 20:35 (UTC)
Yeah I prefer the relief maps, but a certain Mr. Obersache reverts every one added to the main maps so I had to start seperate relief maps at least for mountains...Dr. BlofeldWhite cat17:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld, you don't have to start seperate relief maps. I always told you that you can use the AlternativeMap parameter. It works fine. --Obersachse (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do, actually. There are also stanitsas which are even bigger than that (and also without articles). If you think any of those need to be created urgently and you don't have time to do it, by all means let me know—I can write a fairly decent stub (and no, it's not going to be just the dry stats, unless that's all you need). Also, what connection does this have to "novoyaz" you mentioned in the edit summary? I don't understand. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 27, 2010; 21:10 (UTC)
Thanks for your recent heartwarming message on my talk page. If I recall correctly, I sort of fell out of Wikipedia, though not for any particular reason. Recently, I have made some edits as an anonymous user, but I'm not really back; if I were, I'd want to try to pick up whatever threads I'd been pursuing and I know I wouldn't want to set aside the time that'd require. Still, it is good to see that some folks are still here trying to maintain some quality.
As regards those edits I made "as myself" in June, I remember thinking they'd probably be worth more with a username, although I turned back into an IP in the thread that followed.
Hope you like the hedgehog picture I've included. Your post inspired me to look for some at Flickr that could be uploaded to the Commons.
Hey, I am just glad to know that you are, you know, alive :) It's perfectly understandable about having no time to do much around here—that's life—although I sure hope you will be able to fully return at some point in the future!
An editor who is not logged in keeps changing the climate data for Oymyakon. I've already
reverted him/her twice. I'd appreciate it if (on Monday) you'd check whether the changes are appropriate and revert if necessary. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the approved spellings for Arkadiy Bakhin (Commander of the Volga-Urals Military District –MD) has become the acting Commander of the West OSK; Lieutenant-General Aleksandr Galkin (Commander of the North Caucasus MD) will command the South OSK; Admiral Konstantin Sidenko (Commander of the Pacific Fleet) now commands the East OSK and Lieutenant-General Vladimir Chirkin ? Looks like I may need to do translations/article creations. See Talk:Armed forces of the Russian Federation for background. Thanks, Buckshot06(talk)06:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have approved spellings, we have romanization guidelines :) For each individual person from your list, you should be using the spelling which is the most common in the English-language sources you are going to use. If you only have Russian sources, then use the WP:RUS default romanization—Arkady Bakhin, Alexander Galkin, Konstantin Sidenko, Vladimir Chirkin. If the English-language sources use different spellings inconsistently, then pick one that's closest to the WP:RUS default variant. Does it help? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2010; 14:22 (UTC)
I have no desire to argue about something as silly as this, but please note that the guideline you cited works both ways. While there is nothing wrong with linking to an article via a redirect, there is equally nothing wrong with linking to it using a piped link. Edits which merely switch between these two approaches and add nothing else of value (like this) should be avoided. While I shouldn't be changing redirects to piped links just for the sake of avoiding the redirect, you also shouldn't be changing piped links into redirects just for the sake of removing a piped link. There's a reason why one of the shortcuts to that guideline is called WP:NOTBROKEN. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 17:26 (UTC)
Please respect WP:NPA, calling actions people do silly is kind of an ATTACK. Also I have no desire to argue seems not right, why so much words then? Why don't you just stay off? There's a reason why one of the shortcuts to that guideline is called WP:NOTBROKEN - Of course! And there is a reason why I unpiped. In the case here NOTBROKEN refers to "Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken". Schwyz (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was in no form intended as an attack; if you saw it as such, please accept my most sincere apologies. It is, however, my personal opinion that edits like this are silly. This particular edit did not make any improvements; it did not fix anything; it merely constituted a technical interpretation of an editing guideline (not even a policy). One or two such edits don't make much difference, but I wanted to point this out to you just in case you decide to do it systematically, in which case it would be a waste of everyone's time (including yours) indeed. Hence my comment (and it is in "so many words" simply because I have a propensity to blabber).
As for the literal interpretation of the guidelines, please note that their intent is usually to prevent misunderstandings and useless reverts (like ours). In general sense (not just within this guideline), when something is not broken, it is counterproductive to "fix" it. This is why we never change British spellings to American and vice versa, switch between different date formats, or between link styles unless something obviously needs fixing or otherwise creates problems. With Turan, no problem existed before your edit, no problem was solved during your edit, and no problem appeared after your edit. All in all, your edit was pointless. In such cases it is always best to stick with what's already in place, especially because there just might be other reasons why the original contrubitor chose one style over another; reasons you might not be aware of. In case of Turan, for example, piped link style is typical in vast majority of articles about the Russian inhabited localities. With your desire to achieve universal consistency, surely there should be some appeal in preserving the consistency which is already in place? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 18:16 (UTC)
Again, respect NPA! I don't call your edits silly. If you see no sense in mine, you may ask. I am not for unpiping completely, but if Tuva Republic is a valid term and a redirect, and at same time is save against future changes of the content at Tuva - it could become a dab, then unpipe is helpfull. Same for the republic of Khakassia, there may be other entities called Khakassia in the future. Schwyz (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lighten up, will ya. You are more than welcome to call my edits silly in return; in the hindsight, this definitely was one. As for the disambigs, why not create one first and then change the links? Or at least hint in the edit summary that you are making the changes in preparation of a new disambig page? There is no need to do the preparations "just in case"; what even makes you think that the people who will eventually create the disambig page for those theoretical "other entities" won't take care of the resulting incorrect links on their own?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 18:49 (UTC)
Other people, see my user talk hist, think the opposite. Sometimes I create the DAB first and then fix or let fix. And people attack me for not fixing all links. See also WP:FIXDABLINKS. Schwyz (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it helps clarifying why you are doing the thing you are doing in the edit summary. When an explanation is available, chances that someone will jump at you for not understanding the reasons are much, much lower. Saves nerves to us all. Peace,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 20:08 (UTC)
That's because the names of the inhabited localities are disambiguated using the full name of the federal subjects. This is done to facilitate the disambiguation between the historical entities ("Tuva" may mean the "Tyva Republic", or "Tuvan's People Republic", or several other things, while with the "Tuva Republic" there is no room for ambiguity). Cf. Nurlatsky District, Republic of Tatarstan and Nurlatsky District, Tatar ASSR—this happens more often that one'd think.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 18:35 (UTC)
P.S. Besides, Schwyz is right about the disambiguation—we should make Tuva a disambig page listing all of the historical entities which were known as Tuva throughout history. Sure beats hunting them down in the main article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 19:09 (UTC)
For Turan - it was located in several things called Tuva? But still, the Republic might be the best links, too many localities might have issues in Russia, so best all use Federal subject as default rule. Schwyz (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have this problem specifically with Turan, but if we disambiguate some places using the full name of the federal subject, it makes sense to do it all the time or otherwise it's going to be one big mess.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 20:08 (UTC)
Not sure you got what I wanted to bring: If Tuva Republic changes its name to Tuva Free Republic, all locality articles would need to be moved or new articles be created. No such problem if the dab is only Tuva. Using first-level country subdivisions for dab might be good if they are stable. But that maybe is the price, and maybe moving is not so difficult if needed one day. When I wrote "For Turan - it was located in several things called Tuva?" - I wondered whether this Turan was located in other entities called Tuva Something. Schwyz (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If during another round of mergers some of the federal subjects in Siberia are merged into, say, Siberian Krai, the titles like Turan's will also need to be changed regardless of whether the disambiguator is "Tuva" or "Tuva Republic". You can't prevent all the possibilities; at some point the need for renaming might surface anyway. On the other hand, using the full name of the federal subject allows for disambiguation along the historical axis; using just "Tuva" does not. And it's not like it's a lot of work to do the moves—only a handful of places (namely places in the republics whose names are not unique within Russia) are affected by this convention. It's not really all that much trouble to do the moves if doing so becomes necessary.
As for "this Turan" question—no, I am not aware of any historical ambiguity there (which, of course, doesn't mean there isn't one). The reason why I would still oppose moving the article to "Turan, Tuva" is because it will lead to the articles name being inconsistent with the names of other articles named using this convention—if all others use the full name of the federal subject as a disambiguator, what makes Turan so special that it shouldn't?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 11, 2010; 01:23 (UTC)
Nope, we definitely don't need to have two of them. Re-organizing the whole defunct/former/abolished/destroyed mess is one of the projects on my to-do list, but if you have an inclination to sort them out, please do so by all means, because I don't have any plans to start working on this any time soon. Help would most certainly be appreciated. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2010; 21:01 (UTC)
Well, I think my help qualified me more for a maniac barnstar, but since I don't think we have one available, I guess this one'll do :) Anyway, if you need my ears for anything else in the future, please don't hesitate to drop a note. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 13, 2010; 13:10 (UTC)
Portal links are not "intended for placement in the main article" only as you stated. This is not a Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and portal links to the portals improves the encyclopedia as a whole, and makes knowledge more available to people. Many people are not aware that the portals exist on Wikipedia because of a lack of portal links in articles with a high relevance relative to the portals, and without portal links, many people would remain unaware of the portals.
If there were only portal links in main articles, then the portals wouldn't be known.
Since Wikipedia is not a democracy, then I guess you shouldn't have any trouble accepting my pulling rank on you and making an administrative decision to remove the links, eh? :)
Kidding aside, you are, of course, right that Wikipedia is not a democracy. However, neither it is an anarchy. We don't have editors running around changing things as they please regardless of what others think (or, more importantly, do and do not do). The placement of portal links on every tangentially related page is not covered by any official guideline, but it is simply contrary to common sense and general practices. You seem to imply that we should be using the portal links to promote the portals, but the very purpose of the article space is to make information as compartmentalized and relevant to a reader as possible. We are not supposed to bombard our readers interested in, say, Amur Oblast, with sales pitches like "hey, by the way, here's a nice portal (or five) you could visit, and here is the list of two hundred other articles you might find interesting because they seem vaguely related, and oh, by the way, we could really use your help at WP:RUSSIA, too". Doing so does not help the reader at all, and whatever does not help the reader directly should go.
Please don't re-add the portal links on a mass scale again. If you disagree with my interpretation of the general practices, you are more than welcome to open an RfC regarding the matter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 13, 2010; 13:30 (UTC)
Russia stops being "post-Soviet" the moment Mr. Putin goes... then we'll have a slew of "post-Putin Russia" cats to contend with :)
Seriously, though, I think you are right. I can't say I'm too enthused about the "(1991-present)" part in the title—looks ugly!—but since neither me nor, apparently, anyone else, can offer a better alternative, this should be an improvement over the "post-Soviet" moniker—it's been almost twenty goddamn years after all! While "post-Soviet" is not always a bad description, it is nevertheless a very poor choice for articles' and categories' titles. I'm with you on that. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2010; 13:47 (UTC)
You should ask the author of the article about that. There have been no transliteration issues since I started writing articles on Russian nobility back in 2004. Since some editors want to make a mess out of what used to be a pretty clear picture, well, it's up to them to sort it out. --Ghirla-трёп-05:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The system itself is fine; it's just being misapplied. The purpose of WP:RUS is to provide a consistent, predictable spelling to fall back on in situations when no conventional English spelling exists or when one is difficult to identify. With Princesse Moustache, if that's indeed what she is best known as in English, adding a source or two will make the problem go away immediately (and, as Russavia rightfully noted, will help with one catchy DYK hook). Regarding "ё" after sibilants, that, again, is simply a default fallback provision. If sources exist to support "Natalia Tchernyshova", then there is no problem with using this spelling as a title.
As you see, most everything in WP:RUS starts and ends with the sources. If the only sources used in an article are a Russian site operated who knows by whom and a copy of a German Wikipedia article, I see no problem with using "Darya" in "Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova" (WP:RUS' default) instead of "Daria". Google Books might be everyone's friend, but if it is you insisting on changing the title, it is up to you to add the appropriate reference. In absence of such a reference, the default WP:RUS spelling will do just fine (especially considering it shows in those same google books almost as much as the other spelling). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2010; 13:09 (UTC)
The application of WP:RUS promoted by Tetromino, etc makes no sense, since "Darya" stands for "Даря", not "Дарья". It must be obvious to any native Russian speaker. That being said, I can't care less about the ladies in question (Салтыков is traditionally rendered in English as Soltikoff, just like Голицын becomes Galitzine, so it's all moot). --Ghirla-трёп-05:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's the old grumpy Ghirla I know! :) If you don't care, what did you bother me for, I ask? Anyway, just wanted to remind that romanization systems do not target "native Russian speakers"; they are merely a standardization tool used to reach Anglophones. As for "Дарья" rendered as "Darya", the latter is merely a simplification of "Dar'ya"—unless one is dealing with a strict BGN/PCGN application, apostrophes are generally removed from the romanization. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2010; 13:21 (UTC)
Not much different from hundreds of similar villages out there, I'm afraid. Glad you could use it—it's so much more fun to do something when you know it is being looked forward to :) If you come upon some other place related to your family history, don't hesitate to let me know. I don't usually do translations just for the heck of it, but I will gladly make an exception when it's personal. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 20, 2010; 15:43 (UTC)
The region's history in the article is long overdue for being split into a separate article (or even articles). I'm merely trying to keep the article focused on the modern federal subject, which the new title encourages. There is nothing wrong with putting everything and the kitchen sink into one article at its early stages of development, but once enough material accumulates, everyone is best served by keeping the information tightly grouped. Does that make sense?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2010; 20:24 (UTC)
That is easily fixed by moving the dab to Dagestan (disambiguation), redirecting "Dagestan" to Republic of Dagestan, and adding the {{redirect}} hatnote to the "Republic of Dagestan" article. The reason I didn't do it that way was to gauge the number of concerns regarding leaving the dab at "Dagestan". Congratulations, yours is #1 :) If you could wait a few days before doing it the way I described above, I would appreciate it. Is that acceptable to you? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2010; 20:38 (UTC)
FWIW, I think that Dagestan, Adygea, Chuvashia, etc. should all be the articles about the currently existing republics. When you click on France, you do not get a disambiguation page asking whether you meant the Fifth Republic, the Fourth Republic, the Second Empire, etc. When you click on Russia, you do not get a disambiguation page asking whether you meant the current Republic, the RSFSR, or the Empire, etc. These are places that exist today and also have existed in history with different political identities, but were the same place; they are not two different places (like Georgia) that just coincidentally share the same name. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, R'n'B. I am, however, not quite sure if your concern is different from Offliner's—the solution I suggested above should remedy yours as well, no?
On the other hand, if a part of your concern is having the articles at the fully spelled out names, consider this. There are currently twenty-one republics of Russia. Of those, the titles of four (Altai Republic, Republic of Karelia, Komi Republic, and Sakha Republic) were already fully spelled out before I started to work on the rest. That's nearly one fifth, and they can't be moved to shorter names for ambiguity reasons much more pronounced than those with, say, Adygea or Buryatia. Furthermore, names of the articles about fifty-five krais and oblasts are also fully spelled out, because the short name is either already taken (Irkutsk Oblast vs. Irkutsk) or is not used in English on its own (Primorsky is not an acceptable short name for Primorsky Krai, for example). The only autonomous oblast of Russia (Jewish Autonomous Oblast) is at full name because that happens to be what it is usually called in English anyway. And the autonomous okrugs are at full names because a variety of short names (neither of which can honestly be called "common") exists for them. So we have sixty-six federal subjects (~80% of them all) with names fully spelled out, and seventeen republics which are not. I'm moving them to longer names mostly for consistency sake. Note also that I'm not just moving them to some made-up Wikipedia-only names (like it is often the case with the monarchs—Ivan IV of Russia is "common English", really?), I am moving them to what is often a more correct form than what we are using currently. Consider, for example, that while both "Dagestan" and "Republic of Dagestan" enjoy equal official status per that republic's constitution, such is not the case with, say, the Republic of Adygea—just "Adygea" is not the official name. Add on top of that the issue of ambiguity between the historical entities, and having the nineteen republics at slightly longer titles should make a lot more sense, wouldn't you agree? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 25, 2010; 13:26 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you've created more Russian administrative division dabs. Do you think you could slow down on the dab creation and help clean up per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Really, you should fix links before creating a dab, but at the very least, fix the dablinks you've created before creating more dabs. Cheers, --JaGatalk09:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother. I have moved Dagestan, Adygea, Chuvashia, Mordovia and Udmurtia to the corresponding "Title (disambiguation)" titles, and redirected each of those titles to the respective primary topic, following exactly the instructions you suggested in the earlier section on this page. Since you clearly know how to do this the right way, it would be appreciated if you would do so in the future. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, folks! Thanks for your comments.
First off, I would like to clarify that it is my intent to straighten out each and every link (and category!) affected by the moves I initiated (I am not in a habit of leaving dirty work to others). Secondly, R'n'B, thanks for taking care of the articles I moved, but for future occasions I would appreciate it if you could wait just a tad longer as far as the more recent moves (like Udmurtia) are concerned. The reason I don't do it the "right way" right away is because having a disambig where an article used to be immediately raises all kinds of flags and serves as a catalyst for cleanup—automated, auto-assisted, and manual. I know I said I intend to fix it all myself, but it doesn't mean help isn't appreciated :) Once most of that activity subsides, the disambig can be moved sideways and replaced with a redirect to the new article location; just like you did today.
In response to JaGa, I actually was trying to limit my moves to one a day, but if it still creates too much strain, please let me know what the optimal rate would be. There are still eleven articles to be moved—naturally, I would like to be done with them sooner rather than later, but definitely not at the expense of the sanity of helpful editors like those taking on issues on WP:TDD. It is my understanding that TDD exists to help with things of this nature, is it not so? So far the project participants have been immensely helpful. Am I wrong to count on your/their participation when doing the moves? If so, please let me know as well—I am perfectly capable of grinding through this manually without anyone's help, although, of course, it'll take a lot longer. On the automation tools—I am, of course, aware of their existence, but for reasons outside my control I can't use them on the computer I contribute from most often (AWB, for one, requires installation of software, which is not an option for me at work). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 13:35 (UTC)
Ezhiki, I think you may have a misconception about what happens when a disambiguation page appears on WP:TDD. There is no automatic clean-up of links; that is because, in nearly all cases, human review of links is necessary to resolve any ambiguity and determine what article the link should go to. As JaGa explained above, the "right thing", at least ideally, is to fix the links before moving any pages, although sometimes this is difficult as a practical matter. However, it is not particularly helpful to create a disambiguation page at the primary title, leave it there for a few days until "most of that activity subsides," and then redirect the primary title back to the actual primary topic. All that does is create a lot of make-work, because a lot of what other editors have been doing has been changing links (for example) from Adygea to Republic of Adygea, which then becomes pointless when the first one becomes a redirect to the second one. It would be much more efficient just to fix those links that need to be fixed in the long term, but that does take someone with knowledge of the subject-matter. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned "automatic" because I was under the impression that some bots (even if they have to be initiated manually) are involved in that type of cleanup as well, no? At any rate, it would have been more helpful to have folks with experience in large-scale cleanup do it—the redirects could use some straightening because in this particular case there's no benefit whatsoever of linking via a redirect as opposed to a straight link. Oh well, if that's not what projects like TDD are there for, I'll manage on my own. Point taken; thanks for your time and patience; I won't be a bother in this area again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2010; 14:24 (UTC)
Regarding the Dnepropetrovsk maniacs. Some of the photos shown in court had captions added by the killers, one of which was "всех убить, всё отнять!" (Kill everyone, take everything!") A Google search on this phrase brings up quite a few hits. Is this a popular phrase or quote from somewhere? Thanks, --♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)10:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's a quote from something, I wouldn't know—I haven't watched Russian TV in ten years and don't really follow their trends and pop-culture. The search engine results suggest it's a popular slogan in multi-player games like WoW, but whether it's originally from there or was borrowed from elsewhere, I have no idea. You might want to post this question at WT:RUSSIA; maybe some real Russians will be able to answer it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 13:33 (UTC)
There is a vaguely similar phrase in the intro of the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, "Вы все всё равно скоро сдохнете" ("You are all going to die/be slaughtered soon anyway"). This is here on YouTube. The phrase "всех убить, всё отнять!" may be from a video game, I'll ask around.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No that is not a secret code in need of decyphering. Offliner is currently on vacation, and I guess he won't see the messages in regards to one of his DYK noms. It appears that some editors have a problem with a DYK hook stating that someone doesn't have a boyfriend. Well, so that his work is not in vain, perhaps you would like to verify a hook or two at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Irina_Antonenko. If it were me, I would be verifying alt 5 ;) --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak19:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvement. How did I do with the Russian sources? Google translate gave me a gisted translation, plus with what I already knew I was able to sort out most of it, but I did have to leave a few details out where I wasn't exactly sure of the translation. Let's hope this one doesn't end up at AfD, where discussions are getting quite heated at the moment. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't much of an improvement, really. I just linked a few things. Sources look fine, although I did not make an effort to compare what the sources say with what the article says. If you have any particular pieces in mind that you think could benefit from an overview by a native speaker, feel free to let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2010; 17:12 (UTC)
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Yeah, I created that page awhile ago... I think... I did a quick search to see if I could find anything, and I can't find anything about LGBT life in tiny Chuvashia, though I did find an LGBT Tatar site: http://www.lgbt-tatarstan.ru... we could probably make a LGBT page for Tatarstan, if anyone ever wanted to. I'm not really interested as of now and don't really have the time either...
Thanks for taking time to comment, Yalens. I have no problem with this article being re-written while on prod or re-created after the deletion. It's its present condition I was objecting to when I prodded it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 13:15 (UTC)
(I'm going to respond in English on the off chance this thread needs to be referred to in the future).
I don't know nearly enough about how the bots of this kind operate or are supposed to operate, so I can't really help with the specifics of the petitioning. I can, however, do the following. First, the discussion result (if there ever was one) is indeed inconclusive, so I'm going to move the thread back to the active portion of the noticeboard. Second, my recommendation (either to you or Volkov) is to add a few specific examples of how the links being removed actually benefit the process in the long run. Input is as good a starting point as any. Third, if the difference of opinions boils down to the philosophy of interwiki linking, I'm afraid there's not much that can be done—I myself, for example, question the utility of permanently removing interwikis from a page to a section of an article in another wiki, even though at the same time I understand very well why such an approach often does not work programmatically. If all the differences in opinion boil down to is the philosophy, then perhaps this should be taken to meta, as there's no guarantee some other wikis wouldn't block this bot for the same reasons the English Wikipedia did, thus exacerbating the problem even more.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 13:27 (UTC)
Hey, thanks (I knew the bug would be something stupid like that)! I'm a bit surprised that {{convert}} is having problems with the conversion this basic (which is why I never bothered to fix this template), but I'm glad you caught it and made it usable once again. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 13:13 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality problem with citation needed templates
Hi! I remarked that Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality has an odd function. See Tuapse for example. It adds "citation needed" templates everywhere in the infobox. I think it's utterly useless, first of all because it makes the Russian towns articles look bad, and secondly because other infoboxes for cities (such as Template:infobox settlement) lack this feature. Can you please reformat the template so the citation needed markings are gone ? Thanks in advance, 79.182.112.156 (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That other infoboxes lack this feature is the problem of those infoboxes. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, meaning that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, [must] be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation.... Every single line in the {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} can be challenged, hence every single line must be attributed to a reliable source. If the abundance of the "citation needed" links is tiring to you, you have the full right to remove the unsourced information altogether. Alternatively (and more productively), you can supply the sources.
On the "looks bad" point, of course it looks bad, because it is bad to have in one place so many unattributed factoids masquerading as verified information. The solution, once again, is to either remove the unsourced bits or to source them. Note that where everything is done properly (see, for example, the Novosibirsk article), there is no problem. It's not like it's impossible to reference the missing pieces! If it were, then it wouldn't have belonged in the infobox in the first place.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 14:21 (UTC)
No problem. If you are looking to fix a particular article or two, feel free to let me know which. I can't source all articles with this infobox at once (although I do certainly wish I could!), but I can help you source any single one of them individually. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 14:30 (UTC)
I've referenced most of Tuapse, although I am not finding reliable sources to back up the area figure and the telephone code. If you could find sources for those, it'd be appreciated. I'll tackle Severodvinsk tomorrow. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2010; 20:26 (UTC)
A user name? A smart choice, welcome! I've fixed the reference for the telephone code (for some reason yours was pointing to the "R" page) and will be on the lookout for the area figure. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 14, 2010; 15:21 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Philipmj24 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - feel bit embarrassed - found that the bridges had been tagged with the bridges project but not the russian - so did the project tag first - I have WP:RS and photos for commons - from my visit last year - but hey it will take me time to get them up - the sources and the photos - cheers SatuSuro14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem; the WikiProject tags are only one of the many secondary tools we have and are easy to overlook. Don't worry; we'll catch them all eventually :) Thanks much for your work on this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 15, 2010; 14:27 (UTC)
I must say a brief foray a day does find some intriguing untagged russian categories - I just wished I had ventured out of the nevski prospect area more than I did when I was there last year SatuSuro14:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. If there's ever anything you think I can help with, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers and welcome,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 21, 2010; 15:08 (UTC)
I share your concern, but the user's edits seem to be in good faith, if misguided. I hope you'll be able to engage him in discussion. For my part, I posted a short comment to the user's response. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 22, 2010; 13:40 (UTC)
I've moved "YEgor Lavrov" article to Egor Lavrov, because all google sources about this person references to him as "Egor Lavrov" changing it to "Yegor" will only create confusion. Here is c couple of the reliable sources -
TechCrunch (The website's Technorati rank is 2,[4] and is 1st in the Info/Tech category.[5] As of February 11, 2010 it has over 4,563,000 RSS feed subscribers as measured by tracking company FeedBurner. On August 27, 2008, TechCrunch rolled out a new website design. In March 2010, TechCrunch announced it would be launching TechCrunch TV.)
U.S. News & World Report is an American news magazine published monthly in Washington, D.C. Along with Time and Newsweek it was for many years a leading news weekly, although it focused more than its counterparts on political, economic, health and education stories.
Thanks much for taking time to look into this. I moved the article strictly per provisions specified in WP:RUS; based on the only English-language reference (US News—note that the link you supplied above used "Yegor") used in the article. If you incorporate the other sources you found above (with the exception of the google search, which does not qualify as a reliable source) into the article, I have no problems with leaving it at "Egor". Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 22, 2010; 17:22 (UTC)
In the article Saint Petersburg Metro it is quite disconcerting to see: Formerly known as the V.I. LeninOrder of Lenin Leningrad Metropoliten (Russian: Ленинградский Ордена Ленина Метрополитен имени В.И. Ленина), - that is two separate links that precede the russian former name that dont make sense - as I have no russian keyboard or language capacity - can you alert me to a better link perhaps? cheers SatuSuro12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tautological as it may seem, that was the full name of the metro system. I don't know whether the current translation is the best one possible, but there is no going around the fact that it mentions Lenin three times. As for the links, they should probably be removed from the name and linked to later in the text (where the matters of the name and the awards are discussed). I agree they don't at all help readers parse this already cumbersome name.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2010; 12:47 (UTC)
And I though that Australians were the tautological champions of the world - what a sad event to discover that the soviet era had something that out-mossoped mossop :( - I wont tweak it as I am nervous beyond tagging untagged parts of the hermitage or canals at this stage - thank you for your response SatuSuro12:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's named after Lenin, just like the one in Moscow, and then was awarded the Order of Lenin (Kind of like Time awarded Person of the Year to You in 2006). A more closer example would be the Red Ordered Batlic Fleet in the thirties. Hope this helps. Buggie111 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much interested in translation work; sorry! Too much on my plate as it is. I could help with the specifics of the changes, but it seems you are ahead of me there. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2010; 21:15 (UTC)
Welcome back. The former needs to be moved, and the latter is not an inhabited locality, so there is no expectation the name would be romanized using BGN/PCGN; the decision is made based on the sources. Now, what variant those sources favor with Mon Repos, I have no idea—I've never heard of this park before today.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 24, 2010; 15:08 (UTC)
Hi again. If You mean to move Kronstadt to "Kronshtadt", it will not manage: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. --Finrus (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would take me only a few seconds to move the page. However, a page move is always associated with more maintenance and cleanup, which takes time, and it's not like I'm running out of things on my to-do list. On the other hand, moving a page without doing cleanup is simply irresponsible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2010; 12:50 (UTC)
Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that if you are experiencing problems with the stress marks in the Russian words, it means a problem with the fonts support on your side. I have restored the marks where they belong—per previous consensus, they should only be removed where an IPA transcription is present. In other cases, where the stress marks are introduced properly, they do not create problems in compliant browsers. Hope this helps. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 14:02 (UTC)
You didn't provide a link where I might take part in the conversation and help shift the consensus, but (plainly stated) the one you claim to be established... seems unhelpful. You're reducing functionality and causing people to get errors which are not even apparent at first. (Currently the Russian text for Vladivostok displays only K with no sign there is anything else to it.) Further, the Russian is there as a guide to its native spelling; the vowels are unaccented but you're introducing buggy accents in order to treat the Russian script like a pronunciation guide, when it's not. Pronunciation should be given only via sound files or IPA; alternative schemes might include American pronunciation guides, but not Cyrillic letters which are unhelpful to anyone who does not already know Russian.
It's fine and wonderful that Russian browsers have no problems, but there is no reason to reduce normal functionality for English browsers on the English wiki for such a meagre reward.
If the Russian wiki community really feels they need these buggy native formats to mark stress, they need to come up with a less buggy one (cf. ' ) or (similar to pages with Chinese script) have large displayson every page where your text produces these errors linking to enabling support. (Which frankly is more of a hassle than going through or scripting something to go through and make the Russian more user-friendly.) Cf. WP:LEAD, WP:PRON, &c. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ll[y]welyn. I did not provide a link because I honestly don't recall where the discussion took place—last time total removal of the stress marks was seriously considered was, if I am not mistaken, in 2006, if not before that. You are probably going to be better off starting a new thread; just remember that browser support for stress marks in 2006 was much more abysmal than it it now, and the consensus was still to retain them (it was worded something to the effect of "technology will catch up with proper support, as long as we use proper standards to implement the stress mark"). The Russian stress mark is Unicode symbol 769.
What's more, the problems you are experiencing are problems on your side, not on Wikipedia's side. I can't tell whether you have a browser problem, or a font problem, or something else entirely, but for majority of readers these stress marks display correctly. For example, out of six different computing platforms I myself am using, only IE on my smartphone has trouble with rendering the stress marks (and it just shows a blank square instead; nothing like the problem you are describing). All in all, I'd recommend you check for bugs on your side first; perhaps post a message at WP:VPT to see if this problem came up before. As for the way Wikipedia chose to display those stress marks, I am pretty confident there is nothing wrong with it. I am not well-versed in how Unicode works myself, but I've seen quite a few outside opinions, often in relation to bug reports similar to yours. Once again, you'd be better off seeking an expert opinion. In this case, I am merely a keeper of the previous consensus :) Hope this helps. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:49 (UTC)
P.S. I'm also not sure what you mean by "Russian browser". The computer I am currently using is issued by my US employer and it is overall pretty horrible at supporting Cyrillic, yet even in IE6 I can see the stress marks just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2010; 17:55 (UTC)
No, I get that. And I can fix the problem for myself by poking around and adding support. I'm pointing out you / the consensus are obviously creating problems for a non-negligible number of English language users (I'm using US-based computers & software from within the last 2, 3 years); the pages do not obviously show there is an error (they don't produce gibberish which would alert users to a problem but simply blank text); and there are no links on these pages explaining there might be a problem or how easily to go about upgrading one's system. And those are non-negligible problems.
Stress marks are non-standard orthography in the first place, so I don't see why they're worth saving at all; but the approach to creating pages for the general public should not be (essentially) "F*** 'em. It doesn't bother us habitual Russian users at all, and it'll only be a problem for everyone else for the next five years or so." Since you can't find the previous discussion (prolly archived anyway), I started a new one at Cyrillic naming conventions. Cheers. -LlywelynII (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point, too, but one can make an equal argument than a non-negligible population of English language users exists who are unable to see Russian at all, stress marks or no stress marks. Same can be said about any other language utilizing a non-Latin script. Heck, on the computer I am currently on I can't read Dravidian scripts, such as Tamil, and loading the Tamil Wikipedia crashes my browser. Yet it doesn't mean we should rid en_wiki of Tamil spellings or close the Tamil Wikipedia altogether.
Also, the argument about the stress marks being "non-standard orthography" is simply false. They are rarely used, that much is true, but they are quite standard and are actually supposed to be used in certain cases, such as when one need to distinguish between identically spelled but differently stressed words, or to hint at the correct pronunciation of an obscure word, or in dictionaries and encyclopedias. It it were truly non-standard, then we wouldn't expect Unicode to support it, yet a separate symbol for the stress mark exists. And if by "non-standard" you mean that it is not used in the English reference works, then including Russian in the first place would be non-standard, too. Same goes for pretty much any diacritics other than relatively common acute and grave accent marks. Once you say it's OK for the English Wikipedia to include spellings in languages other than English (which is a de facto situation), you are automatically accepting that the rules governing the spellings in those languages automatically apply, too.
The overall philosophy of Wikipedia is not to make sure everything works on everyone's computer—which is a laudable goal, but, unfortunately, impossible to reach. The best thing we can do is to avail ourselves of the existing standards to implement features. With this approach, if a user has a non-standard browser or lacks support, studying applicable standards would be a starting point to remedy that situation. If you have problems with stress marks displaying correctly, start with the Unicode support for your browser. Ditto for my Tamil problem—I'm sure if a proper font is installed or something, I'd be able to see the text just fine. But ridding the encyclopedia from a useful feature just because some people might have a problem with it is not a solution, and abandoning standards in favor of non-standard solutions (like a plain-text stress mark you proposed) is worse yet. Sure, that'll fix the problem for you, but what about those who rely on us to follow the proper standards?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2010; 13:54 (UTC)
I remember promising to add whatever I could find to it, which turned out to be not much. I keep looking, but if you have anything yourself, please don't hesitate to go ahead and add it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 30, 2010; 12:42 (UTC)
Hello Master Ezhiki. See this. I want it to look like Template:Hkamti Township. First command I gather is replace [ space with [. but how do I add a ]] and comma at the end of each one and get them to go on the same line like Template:Hkamti Township and the first four in the Kale Township example?♦ Dr. Blofeld16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an easy one. Copy the entries starting from "[[ Haka" and ending in "[[Zingalaing" to Word. On the first pass, replace →^p^p← with →^p←. On the second pass, replace →^p← with →]], ^p←, remove the junk from the very end, then copy the results back to where they belong in the template, and you should be all set!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 30, 2010; 16:53 (UTC)
Actually, I would ask you to please not do it. I can't, of course, prevent you from doing it, but consider this. I am currently working on a database on all Russian inhabited localities, which, when ready, will allow being fed into a bot and creating the stubs like Starobashirovo automatically, with more information, and with sources, too. However, when there is a one-liner like Starobashirovo already in place, it will mean that the automatic process will need to be delayed to sort the inevitable clashes, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, etc. In Starobashirovo alone I can at a glance see quite a few problems (terminology, incompleteness, inaccuracies) that thinking them mulitiplied by ~4,500 (the number of rural localities in Bashkortostan) makes me positively queasy. Such a mass creation will do more harmful than good—instead of eventually running a bot to create clean stubs which require no maintenance, we'll have 4,500 ugly one-liners which will be a pain in the ass to fix. Please reconsider. Pretty please (with a cherry on top). There are plenty other areas where mass creation of stubs will actually be helpful; this is not one of them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 1, 2010; 14:56 (UTC)
It's just a village, although a fairly sizable one (its population in 2005 was ~3,500). There really isn't much to say about it, although I can create a stub with basic stats if that helps. Also, there is a short article about Bershet in the Encyclopedia of Perm Krai.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2010; 13:42 (UTC)
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
For your kind words regarding the Amendment, but could you clarify the "would also support re-instating the topic ban immediately should Piotrus find himself in an (accepted) Eastern Europe-related ArbComm case ever again". Consider, for example: if I find myself harassed by somebody or in need to curtail serious disruption (case study from the past) and have to ask the Committee to help, or if I am listed as a spurious party without any substantial evidence... what would you do? Also, please note that the ban is set to expire in half a year. In either case, I look forward to editing together with you on some obscure historical administrative topics again :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I would support immediate reinstatement of the ban if you ever find yourself as one of the principal parties (an instigator or facilitator or similar) participating in an EE-related conflict. As far as potential harassment goes, if an arbitration request in which you are a named party is not accepted by the ArbComm then, of course, my comment would not apply.
In the hindsight, I probably made it more complicated than it should have been, but I hope you now get the intent. Additionally, unless it is my comment specifically that decides the outcome (which I don't think is very likely), I see little point in elaborating on the theoretical what-if scenarios. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2010; 16:46 (UTC)
I take it the "non-native speaker" bit is mildly sarcastic, but I admit that the sarcasm is well-deserved—the felicity of phrase keeps escaping me today; hence the confusion. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2010; 17:58 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
standardisation of articles may be a good thing, but whenever people sacrifice encyclopedic information just for some standardisation my hair stands on end.
Your edits here and here did exactly this. Your "brainless stub" is in fact less helpful than a redirect to the larger article, and your removal of the list of rural administrations is apparently just based on the idea that either all the villages in the oblast should be listed, or else none at all. This is a singularly ill-advised approach to Wikipedia, where articles grow iteratively.
The result is that we now have a useless stub about a random district in the Irkutsk oblast instead of a gradual improvement of Administrative divisions of Irkutsk Oblast. What you should do instead is remove all the pointless redlinks from the main article, and start expanding its structure instead to include more fine-grained information.
Well, in response I could write an equally emotionally charged diatribe about how some people (with best intentions, of course) assume something and try to pass that something as true and encyclopedic information ("flag of Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug", copied word-for-word from "flag of Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous Okrug", really?), but since your hair don't stand on end when people do that, let's instead focus solely on the administrative divisions of Irkutsk Oblast.
First off, since when is a short referenced stub considered to be "less helpful" than a redirect to an article which does nothing but repeat the title of the redirect and create an illusion that we already have an article? I also find it incredibly ironic that you would advise a person who routinely helps out with systematic creation of the articles on the Russian districts to "include more fine-grained information" about two random districts he didn't get to just yet. Tell me, is this "fine-grained" enough for you? How about this? I suppose this would be better off if we replaced it with one of your famous redirects as well?
All in all, borrowing from your vocabulary, how the hell is upgrading a redirect to a stub not qualify as a "gradual improvement"? And what made you think I was even done with those two stubs?
Now let's review my "removal of the list of rural administrations", which is "apparently just based on the idea that either all the villages in the oblast should be listed, or else none at all". My response to that is "ahhhhhhhh!!!!". Here's why. Let's forget for a moment that the "list" was all in Russian, without as much as transliteration accompanying it, thus making it completely useless in this English Wikipedia. Let's also not mention the spelling errors in that list ("Больше" is not a word). But the "list" is neither that of the villages, nor of the "rural administrations" (and oh yes, let's also gloss over the fact that the villages are not the same as the rural administrations, as your question seems to imply)! The list you copied without thinking is that of the rural settlements, which are not administrative divisions. They are municipal divisions. Ugh!
I can understand the frustration of an editor who sees his work reverted wholesale, but I assure you in this case it was the best I could do. I honestly thought about incorporating your changes into the list, only to find out after weeding out things which make no sense that I am left with nothing to incorporate. Why would you choose to work on a highly technical subject you know next to nothing about? You've been a Wikipedian for just as long as me; surely you know by now that's never a good idea? Assigning a historical flag to a modern administrative division, breaking the structure of the list of the administrative divisions (an okrug of Irkutsk Oblast is a division hierarchically above both the cities and the districts, not between the cities and the districts), removing red links without giving a reason (did you know that the backlinks those red links produce are invaluable for a multitude of other tasks?), introducing concepts unrelated to the list's scope, arbitrarily changing the spelling of a link instead of taking care of the problem properly—all that is nothing to write home about. And after introducing all that mess you accuse me of the audacity to turn a redirect into (oh horrors) a stub? Pah! Yes, I was having a bad day, after having to waste time on sorting out your "improvements" to find out there's nothing to sort. Shouldn't come as much surprise that I overlooked one interwiki link in all that mess. My bad, sorry about that, is fixed now.
Snarkiness aside, if you really wish to improve the list, why not start with updating it with the 2010 information? Did you know that the list is presently based on OKATO, which is reliable but lagging? Did you know that a new law on the administrative-territorial division of Irkutsk Oblast was adopted this June? Did you know that the new law no longer recognizes rural administrations as an administrative unit? Now that I pointed out the difference between the administrative and municipal divisions, would you be willing to convert this list to cover both concepts (so it could resemble this list)? If there ever was a logical point to start with "gradual improvements", the new law would be it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 19, 2010; 13:55 (UTC)
Alexander Chain - this is a biography article about Russian mathematician who was born "Alexander Chancovich" in St. Petersburg, Russia in 1629. This and the whole article seems to be a joke or a prank, don't know how this is qualified in wikiterms. Can you do something about it, or at least notify the people who are dealing with such things? GreyHoodTalk17:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have zapped it, thanks. Most detected hoaxers just fade away, but this one actually asked why it was deleted]]. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arrogance? What doust thou speaketh of? :) I'm always happy to create place stubs on request! I'll see what I can do when I return to editing on Monday; even if it turns out not to be much, you'll at least have a stub and a set index. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2010; 20:13 (UTC)
So shall be it! ☺ Take my solemn and deepest gratitude for all your future feats and deeds. No need to hurry, indeed, since it seems that I'll not start working on the article Skolkovo innovation center at least for the next few days. My regards, GreyHoodTalk20:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Tuvans article needs some help. There used to be a photo of a Tsengel Tuvan family in the infobox and it appears to have been deleted for unknown (probably copyright) reasons. This got me thinking that it is time to improve it with thumbnail portraits of notable Tuvans. The problem is the lack of source images and therein lies my request for help from you. I think you can help with regards to any copyright issues of old photos and would appreciate any suggestions you have. For example, what do you think would be the public domain status of any photos of Salchak Toka or Donduk Kuular? I'm going to see if I can't get any friends to release some photos of contemporary notable Tuvans they may have for this project. Thank you for your time. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, let me dig around, but I'm afraid I have no clue where something like this can be found. As for Toka and Kuular, it is likely that the PD photos of them exist (under the terms of commons:Template:PD-old-70), but, again, no idea if any would be available online.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 25, 2010; 13:44 (UTC)
Umm, OK, I'm confused. Why would anyone think it's OK to resolve a missing citation by shoving in an empty ref??? The infobox "citation missing" tags are no different from the "citation missing" tags elsewhere—the only proper way to get rid of them is by supplying a citation! Or am I missing the point of the question somehow? Can you clarify?
The only thing which is different with the infobox refs is that they are supposed to go into a separate "_ref" field (i.e., the "established_date" field's ref would go into "established_date_ref"), not next to the bit of data being referenced. This is because our parser does not have a good way to parse a parameter to check whether <ref> tags are present, so the ref needs to go into a separate parameter. But that quirk is pointed out in the template documentation.
Ah, so it's a feature. It's just the first time I see a place infobox that demands a citation for the bold claim that a city is a city. :-) --Illythr (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know. But, a claim like that is something that "is likely to be challenged", hence the citation is required. Plus, a "city" is not always a city; I've seen urban-type settlements and even rural localities labeled as "cities" in the infobox as well. Having a ref in such cases is more than appropriate. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 30, 2010; 21:21 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it. In the data I have, there are no details for the Abkhaz ASSR whatsoever. Is there anything specific (apart from the population) you were looking for?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2010; 14:46 (UTC)
OK no worries. Anything on it would be useful. I've somehow managed to scrape together what we have already given the lack of sources....I'm also expanding Bzyb River I have info from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia but do you have anything in Russian on it? ♦ Dr. Blofeld14:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HI. When you return from the weekend can you check the edits of 94umep. There are likely to be some mistranslations-I suspect he is using google translate but his edits are welcome all the same.♦ Dr. Blofeld23:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have his contributions on my to-(re-)do list since March of this year; I just never had a chance to look them over. Thanks for the reminder! I do, however, disagree that such edits are welcome and/or useful—if our readers want a broken machine translation, they can feed the article from ru_wiki to google translate (or any other translation engine of their choice) all on their own. Dumping such translations into our article space is like dumping waste in a bustling downtown in hopes that folks there might find something that's useful! If these machine translations were of a resource that's not easily available online, it would have been a different matter, but since they are just ru_wiki translations, I don't really see the benefit (although the users' intentions are, of course, in good faith). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2010; 17:08 (UTC)
Куолемаярви входило в состав одноимённой волости Выборгской губернии Финляндии. Переименовано в 1948 г. Железнодорожная станция сохранила прежнее название.
Лейпясуо: После войны посёлок и станцию неоднократно пытались переименовать: в частности, предлагались названия «ст. Приветная» и «Казаково». Однако ни один из этих вариантов не был утверждён, и станция сохранила своё название.
Мюллюпельто: Станция получила своё название от близлежащего посёлка в то время, когда большая часть Карельского перешейка принадлежала Финляндии. Во время массовых переименований в конце 1940-х годов из-за волокиты в железнодорожном ведомстве сохранила изначальное название, в отличие от давшего его посёлка. Скорее всего, переименование железнодорожной станции не удалось из-за уже существовавшей в ту пору железнодорожной станции Коммунары.
At least these names were not been changed, like many other by ukases of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR at the late 1940's. Therefore, Куолемаярви is Kuolemajärvi (not "Kuolemayarvi"), Лейпясуо Leipäsuo (not "Leypyasuo"), and Мюллюпельто Myllypelto (not "Myullyupelto") etc.
If you need a refresher as to why your points are not valid, please re-read our previous discussions. I already explained where you are wrong multiple times on multiple occasions. This post of yours adds no new information; I already addressed everything before. G'day.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2010; 19:14 (UTC)
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
A search for references found a few minor mentions of the subject in published (gBooks) works, also a Russian language artice is not found using the given spelling "Прасковья Ивановская". Fails WP:N and WP:V
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
But this is a raion and these are most commonly translated as districts. Also WP uses overwhelmingly the format X Subdivision not X subdivision. Maybe you can move this one and the other four:
I only moved it to get rid of the unnecessary disambiguator and only because I was working on the linguistically related Kamensky District page at the time. But you are right, the other three are not ambiguous either. However, you'd probably be better off bringing this to the attention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova, as I suspect that the term "sub-district" needs to be replaced as well (with what, I have no idea).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 18, 2010; 17:35 (UTC)
My source was Alton S Donnelly, The Russian Conquest of Bashkiria 1552-1740 (1968). On page 21 he has: [Kalmyks arrive on the lower Volga] 'Joint Kalmyk and Nogai attacks on the Russian frontier towns led the Muscovites to build a new defensive line southeast to Kazan. Because of its location beyond the Kama it was called the Trans-Kama Line. The first three ostrogs were Aktachinsk on the Aktai, Sheshminsk on the Sheshma, and Menzelinsk on the Menzela River' [These are just south of the Kama]. ' This insignificant little line marked the first step into Bashkiria. Between 1652 and 1657 the old Trans-kama Line was supplanted by a new one. Starting at the Volga it extended almost to the mouth of the Belaia River in Bashkir territory. The principal forts were Belyi Yar, Eryklinsk, Tiinsk, Biliarsk, Novosheshminsk, Kichuevsk, Zainsk and Menzelinsk.' On page 298 he has a map showing Belyi Yar at about the same place as the coordinants in Bely Yar, but the original location is probably under water because of the dam. There is a little more information in Bashkirs / history/ version 27feb 2010 (it got stomped on by some nationalist and I did not bother to restore it.)Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to whine about how my to-read list is too long already to add yet another book to it, but when I saw the title and the cover, I knew it's a must-read :) Thanks for the pointer!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 6, 2010; 14:46 (UTC)
Привет! Если вкартце, я нашел несколько книг по истории административного делления ТАССР, и хотя картина пока не полная - могу коечто уже привести в порядок. Можешь проверить мою последнюю правку Administrative_divisions_of_Tatarstan на предмет правильности терминологий и тп.?
А, добро пожаловать обратно :) За дополнение спасибо —я его обязательно почикаю, но так, по мелочи. В целом очень неплохо. Кое-что я по АТД Татарстана тоже нашёл, но только после 1930-х гг., т.е. про кантоны у меня ничего нет.
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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
As someone who has nominated or commented on one of the current candidates, a couple of which are getting very old, you are invited to comment at this discussion to see if we can tidy up the FSC page before Christmas (and / or one or more of the nominations). Thank you. BencherliteTalk19:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте! Надеюсь, Вы не возражаете против русского языка - так мне все же привычнее. Хотел бы выразить благодарность за понимание, пока , к сожалению не имею времени досконально изучить все закоулки и возможности Википедии, но надеюсь, что в ближайшее время руки дойдут. Очень рад внести какой-либо ценный вклад касательно моего родного Приморья и ДВ. Спасибо! comment added by Russian.dissident
Против русского языка я не имею ничего против. Надеюсь, что несмотря на инцидент вам у нас понравится. Уж над чем-чем, а над приморскими темами работать у нас практически некому, так что любой вклад ценен. Если будут какие-нибудь вопросы, обращайтесь, я с удовольствием помогу.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 22, 2010; 14:17 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:VD486i.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
Hello Ezhiki! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
.svg)
Done. You could also help me with enhancing all the articles about Moscow Metro stations with {{infobox station}} infobox. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 09:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Russian federal city has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Varzuga (rural locality) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geschichte (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Talk 09:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Talk 13:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Template:TVEvent has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
. Ссылку не на ту карту дал и в Uwe Dedering немца не опознал. Просить человека знающего английский перевести мою просьбу на немецкий, как то очень своеобразно... --Виктор В (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
Here is a Ukraine barnstar for your work on this. Thanks for your help.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
. I looked for sources in foreign wikipedias but couldn't find anything. 79.182.112.156 (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Hello. You have a new message at Guoguo12's talk page.
