Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 19 August 2011 (→A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

15 January 2025 From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Yeniseysk and Tuva

Hi. In your article on the Yeniseysk Governorate, you claim that Tuva, as the Uryankhay Krai, was merged into the same administrative framework as Yeniseysk. What sources did you base this on if you don't my asking? All the ones I've seen assert that it was declared an autonomous protectorate of the Russian empire on 17 April 1914.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I remember that, for whatever reason, I wrote that article rather hastily, but I can verify that most of the information came from the source cited in the "References" section. That, however, would only be the post-1920 information. Where the pre-1920 stuff came from, I wouldn't remember if you put a gun to my head! Quite embarrassing, actually. I kinda sorta remember that it was something solid (i.e., not a random bit off the internets), but for the life of me I can't recall what it was, nor can I recall why in the world I didn't list that source along with the other.

Anyhoo, if you have sources attesting to the contrary of what that particular sentence states, then please by all means rephrase the sentence and cite your source. If I happen to stumble upon the material I used, I'll let you know. And sorry about the confusion!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 20, 2011; 13:33 (UTC)

I'm not gonna change it right now, but I don’t actually need any evidence to disprove a positive claim – you need evidence to prove it.

Reason I’m asking is because I'm currently involved in a collaborative online map project, and we found contradictory information on Tuva's status from 1914 to 1921. If it was declared an autonomous protectorate inside of the boundaries of the Russian empire (along the lines of Bukhara and Khiva presumably), it would seem rather strange that the Moscow authorities incorporated it into an adjacent province/gubernia, which suggests outright annexation.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, since I'm obviously as stumped about where the claim came from as you are, you can replace it with another positive claim and add evidence to back it up :)

As for Tuva's status, I may have some books about Tuva's history (with the emphasis on its administrative status, since this is the kind of books I collect) in storage, but it may take me a while to get there and look. If I find anything interesting that may be of help to you, I'll let you know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 17:30 (UTC)

Ok, thanks in advance.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to check out what I have in storage, but I've dug up something that confirms the inclusion of Uryankhay Krai into Yeniseysk Governorate. This article in "Tuva Asia" says that the krai was included as a part of the governorate, and it is sourced to a quite authoritative source by Dubrovsky. I don't know if this helps you any, but it should be a good starting point. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 12, 2011; 18:33 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here (I was looking at Ezhiki's page for the answer to a different question)... Otto Manchen-Helfen writes in his Journey to Tuva that Tuva was "incorporated into Yenisei Gubyerniya" one month after the outbreak of WW1. In the note, he writes that "The annexation, which had been decided upon on April 17, 1914 (four months before the outbreak of World War I), was announced to the Tuvan population in the autumn. Shortly thereafter, the city of Byelotsarsk was founded by the Russian government." Check out pages 195-196 of Journey to Tuva (Czarist Annexation of Tuva, 1911-1917). In Appendix A (pg. 234) there's the history from the People's Revolutionary Party's Fourth Congress: "In 1913 the Russian officials finally forced the acceptance of Russian czarist "protection" upon the Tuvan rulers of the day. The government of Nicholas II dispatched a Commissar Extraordinary, and Urianghai was gobbled up by Yenisei Gubyerniya.". In the Tuvan Manual: "In July 1914, an official communicated the Czar's willingness to grant the Tuvans protection to the Ambyn-Noyan Gombodorji. The latter accepted the provision that "no relations of any kind (were to be maintained) with foreign states, including Mongolia" and Tuva came under the administration of the Yenisei Guberniya. The Russian action was to be kept secret." Hope that helps. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Stacey, this is very helpful and no intrusion at all. I should have thought to ask you earlier!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2011; 13:21 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, both of you! Judging from this information the Russian government seems to have assumed the continued existence of a Tuvan nation under formal Russian protection in spite of the annexation, so I'd say the joinder with Yeniseysk was more for administrative simplicity than complete submersion into the system of direct rule. Annexation was presumably interpreted to rather mean detachment from China and inclusion into the metropolitan area of Russia.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sveinald (Varangian warlord)

Hello! Could you move Sveinald (Varangian warlord) back to Sveneld. The latter title is more nice and simple, and the latter name is much more popular both in google hits and google book hits, even when searching English sources only, vs . GreyHood 16:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was obviously incorrectly moved without starting a move request. GreyHood 16:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the "incorrectly" part, but the move is certainly unexplained. I've moved it back.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 16:23 (UTC)

Thanks for the back move. I mean that it was incorrect technically (brackets addition to unambiguous title) and procedurally; by the way what's with the talk page? Talk:Sveneld (Varangian warlord) is attached to Sveneld and not to Talk:Sveneld. GreyHood 16:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

My screw-up. I'm taking care of it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 16:32 (UTC)

Mariya Svistunova

Hello, This is an article which started as a very poor translation of an unidentified Russian text. It has been upgraded quite a lot since then but I found some problems with the Russian names as well as the dreadful translation. Forms of Russian names often have many Latin alphabet transliterations depending which European language has been used for the purpose. Many libraries use the ALA-LC romanization for Russian but I have not seen much sign of that in Misplaced Pages. Deciding how to change the names that were wrong was difficult.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Felix! We don't normally use ALA-LC romanization in Misplaced Pages because its use is mainly limited to the library catalogs and not to the actual publications. As for the spellings of people's names, we should stick to the spellings used in the sources being cited (I mean the sources in English, of course). If no such sources are available, we use this system (note that it is currently under discussion, but the discussion concerns only a few minor details). Let me know if you need anything further. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 15:27 (UTC)

Thank you, The history of that article Mariya Svistunova is very peculiar: when I began to edit it it was of disputed notability which I thought was a mistake. The first version includes sources like this:

Notes

↑ Peter S. Svistunov (1752-1808) ↑ Memoranda Alymova ↑ House Svistunov ↑ Russian portraits of 18-19 centuries. Т.3.Vyp.3. № 79. ↑ Russian portraits of 18-19 centuries. Т.3.Vyp.3.№ 78. ↑ Christin F. & La Princesse Tourkestanow. Lettres ecrites de Petersbourg et de Moscou: 1817-1819. Kristen Ferdinand and Princess Turkestanova , 1883 / / Russian Archive, 1882. ↑ А. J. Michael-Danilevsky. Notes of 1814-1815 years. — SPb, 1832.

↑ D. Fikelmon. Diary 1829-1837. The whole Pushkin's Petersburg, 2009 .- p.55 So I suppose it is a machine translation from a Cyrillic encyclopedia article but there is nothing to show the title or edition of the encyclopedia. (The advantage of the ALA-LC romanization is that it works well in both directions but it would be unsuitable for Misplaced Pages to adopt it as a standard.) I think these sources ought to be retained somehow. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't have access to any of these, unfortunately. From what I see, all these are originally in Russian (except, of course, the one in French), which means that for spelling guidance [[this page is your best bet (at least until you find anything relevant in English).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2011; 13:35 (UTC)

Malaya Sadovaya street

• Коллега, не могли бы вы ознакомиться с этими двумя небольшими статьями, посвященными картинам русских художников Александра Семёнова и Николая Тимкова: Malaya Sadovaya street (painting) и Russian Winter. Hoarfrost (painting) и высказать здесь и здесь своё мнение по поводу целесообразности их удаления? Как я вижу, среди инициаторов удаления созданных 3 дня назад статей нет занимающихся русским искусством или хотя бы элементарно знающих язык. Статьи являются переводом статей, существующих в русском разделе Википедии: Малая Садовая (картина А. М. Семёнова) и Русская зима. Иней (картина Н. Тимкова) С Уважением, Leningradartist (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Я прокомментировал, но в будущем рекомендую вам не охотиться на участников поодиночке, а обращать внимание на подобные ситуации на WT:RUSSIA.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 27, 2011; 15:12 (UTC)

Спасибо за совет. Сделал. Пока не хватает опыта в этих вопросах. Leningradartist (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Highlighting in the page history

Perhaps you could explain what the highlighting in pale colours is (as on My contributions to the Russian WP, Polish WP & Hungarian WP). As I do not know enough of those three languages to find an account of what those colours means either not knowing or consulting an editor who will know. I know there is a huge difference between us in time zones (here is GMT +1) so am quite patient.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That the article's sighted version status. You wouldn't see these colors on the en_wiki because this feature is not implemented here. A pale yellow highlight means that the article needs to be sighted, while pale blue means that the article had already been sighted by someone. The exact implementation details may vary from one Misplaced Pages to another, but in general your edits will always be marked as unsighted in Wikipedias where you don't have an autoreviewer status, and you can do nothing to change that unless you have a reviewer status. The bottom line—you can safely ignore that highlighting :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2011; 13:27 (UTC)

BlagovesHchensky, Russia

Blagoveschensky, Russia VS Blagoveshchensky Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a typo; I've fixed it. Thanks for catching it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 1, 2011; 17:49 (UTC)

Zyuzino

Maybe you can bring Zyuzino, Russia to SIA standard. The is also one locality in Belarus, so even under your system it would be ", Russia" at least after article creation for that one. But the SIAs don't ask for any article creation to exist, so maybe even under your system, knowledge of the Belarus entity is sufficient, independent of an article or entry in WP. Please no reply on my talk. This was just to inform you. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have reformatted that one. As for your question, if I know for sure that a place by the same name exists outside Russia (whether we have an article on it or not), I always take that into consideration when naming the set on the Russian localities. Doing otherwise would just add to future maintenance for no good reason. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 13:55 (UTC)

Still no reply on my talk page needed:

• Loyno, Russia - the current rural needs to go to ", Kirov Oblast". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
• Omolon, Russia - details on Magadan would be nice. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed Loyno. As for Omolon, there is currently no inhabited locality in Magadan Oblast by this name. There used to be a state farm, but it was never classified as an inhabited locality. I'll double-check the historical records though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 19:31 (UTC)

The sovkhoz was in Magadan? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes (although they may have been one by the same name in ChAO as well). Also, don't forget that Chukotka Autonomous Okrug was once subordinated to Magadan Oblast, so geonames might have taken the data about the same place from different sources and treated them as distinct places. The coordinates, of course, aren't the same, but then geonames isn't exactly a reliable source (I've already found an error in their coordinates data for Loyno).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 20:06 (UTC)

• Argun, Russia - move needed for Argun, Chechnya Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Three SIAs needed, you probably have better data:

• Yuruzan, Russia - Yuryuzan (town) i (correct, although the other one is a tiny village of dubious notability)
• Alatyr, Russia - Alatyr (town) i (correct, although the other one is a tiny village of dubious notability)
• Furmanov, Russia - Furmanov (town) i+o (the one in Russia is a tiny village; no Misplaced Pages article for the entity outside of Russia)

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Kataysk http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Kataysk&country=RU - maybe SIA Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
• Dmitriyev (town) http://www.geonames.org/search.html?q=Dmitriyev&country=RU - maybe SIA Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do, thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:21 (UTC)

Article importance script

I'm writing a script which would automatically insert article importance next to the article name on a task force page. I don't know how to write a bot, but an offline script should also work; one just needs to save the task force page on disk and then cut-paste the result back to WP :). You can see a test run here. As you can see, there are still some problems, but I hope I can fix them "soon". Any suggestions on what the script should do? Is format (just adding importance in parentheses at the end of the line) ok? Nanobear (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Some color-coding would be useful (perhaps it is enough to color-code the importance in parentheses). Also, it would be nice if the script could read the tags on page tops, such as clean-up, neutrality tags etc. and insert the relevant information next to importance. GreyHood 18:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, color-coding is a great idea. Any suggestions for the color scheme? Perhaps Top, High, Mid, Low. The tags could be mentioned in smaller text, not to make the page too distracting, like with Tags: npov, references, deadlinks. Nanobear (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Good, but the tags a bit too small. I'd propose this size and style: Tags: npov, references, deadlinks GreyHood 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also I think the word "importance" could be dropped, Top, High, Mid, Low are just enough. GreyHood 19:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think finding and inserting all tags may not be feasible. There's a huge number of them, and one cannot just get all templates on top of the page, because that would also include stuff like infoboxen. If there was a way to get a list cleanup, neutrality, etc. tags directly through the API, it would work. I tried looking but did not find such a feature there. Maybe I could write a predefined list of, say, 10 main tags we want to be listed, like "npov", "unbalanced", "refimprove", "blp", etc. The question is, would it still be a useful feature with this limited list of tags it recognises? Nanobear (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Another test run: User:Nanobear/tftest. Does the coloring look good? Perhaps the font should be a bit larger or at least it should be in bold? If you spot any mistakes made by the script, I would be grateful. Nanobear (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think 10 main predefined tags would be enough. Coloring is quite good! Check the line with "Russian Amber Company" - it is a red link, so where from does it take importance? GreyHood 22:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the best way to check which tags are present in the article is to look in the hidden categories . The script now recognises these categories. I made another test run with the tags listed: User:Nanobear/tftest. Any comments? Does it look OK, and did I select the right categories? Nanobear (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, was the style you suggested Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup or Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup? (The markup you mentioned was different from rendered text) Nanobear (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The last variants looks OK. A bit too many brackets, though. Maybe it is worth coloring those additional brackets as well, not sure. As for the style of tags its OK either way (perhaps grey is even better), the main point was the font size. GreyHood 18:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of some possibilities:

• 1. Article (Top )(Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup)- current style
• 2. Article (Top; Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - two brackets less
• 3. Article (Top; Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - two brackets less; grey color
• 4. Article (Top) (Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - first brackets have same color as their content
• 5. Article (Top) (Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - all brackets have same color as content
• 5b. Article (Low) (Tags: NPOV, refs, cleanup) - all brackets have same color as content

Of these, I think 4 looks the best. I cannot think of a good way to have less brackets. 5 has the disadvantage, that everything is of same color if importance is low, as 5b shows. We can always change the style later. A new run of the script always just overwrites the old output.

The main problem is probably going to be that the script needs to be manually run each time; if we want to keep the task-force page always up-to-date, one needs to run the script after every addition. A more realistic scheme would be to run the script only once in a week. A way to make the updating quicker would be to write a PHP script instead, and add it to a web page. Then, one would simply enter the URL of the task force page to the web form, and would receive the updated page as copyable text, which can be pasted back to WP. For smaller updates, one could enter the name of the article you have added to the task force page, and the script would give its importance and tags. The problem is, I don't have a web server with PHP support. Nanobear (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree, #4 is the best variant. As for the running issues, let's wait for Ezhiki's advice or perhaps ask some bot-runners, such as User:Alex Bakharev. GreyHood 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to admit that most of the technical stuff related to this is way over my head (I don't know PHP and never learned just how it is exactly the bots operate), so I'm afraid I'm not of much help in that area. We need a willing bot owner to run this, because running this manually every week is not a practical solution, I know that much :)

As for the variants, I also like #4 best.

All in all, great job! I think automating this task was a great idea, and the implementation is pretty good, too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 14:50 (UTC)

Indeed, doing it manually is not a solution at all. GreyHood 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NCRUS - DAB populates places

I started a WP:NCRUS related vote at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2011/July#Remove Russia-specific clause and apply general rules. It would simply mean to remove the "Dikson (urban-type settlement)"-rule and would result in Dikson, Russia by applying the general Misplaced Pages rules. I hope we can at least agree on that one. Especially for "urban-type settlement" I see only five or so articles that would fall under the clause anyway. For "rural locality" I couldn't find a number.

I agree with your move http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Shamkhal,_Russia&diff=437870425&oldid=437373607 - I made a mistake here, applying the subdivision name, but that is not supported by the rules. Sorry. Again, no need to reply on my talk. This was just to inform you. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And once someone writes an article about the port called Dikson, "Dikson, Russia" will be referring to... what? And the article about the urban-type settlement will be moved to... where?

As for Shamkhal, no problem.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 14:39 (UTC)

How would you name the articles on the settlement and on the port if there would be Dikson, Belarus? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Using parenthetical disambiguators, of course (in addition to country specifier when necessary). This applies to Shamkhal, by the way, since there is a railway station called Shamkhal (although we don't yet have an article about it).

My point is that no guideline will ever cover every possibility, and the more possibilities you try to document, the longer and less usable are the instructions. Look at the length of your proposed NCRUS—just how, may I ask, does it "reduce instruction creep" (which was the whole point of your original proposal)? Instead of three simple rules covering most cases you now have kilobytes of instructions which still don't cover all cases!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 16:22 (UTC)

It is you who invented a massive set of rules. But you have them in your head and didn't write them all down. I only documented what I found you have put into several pages. And I found it was inconsistent. You have to compare all your rules with all rules that would result from my proposals, i.e. written down + your head VS written down as proposed by me. But lets stay at the topic, how would you call the Dikson articles? Please write down the links, as I cannot see what you mean. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'm actually the person who works on these articles most. When I create an article, it needs to go under some title, and no one else will name it for me. And it makes sense to name new articles the same way as the articles that already exist. At some point, it makes sense to document the general trends of how these articles are titled, hence the three simple rules we have. That's really the only way to do things when no one else cares much about the work being done but generally agrees that the work is good and necessary. You wouldn't expect me to wait five years to start creating articles just because there is no one else around to discuss the "naming rules", would you?

Also, the existing rules aren't just in my head; they are actually implemented and can be observed. Note that no one is expected to follow the rules in every little detail you have so far documented—if the three major clauses don't cover a situation neatly, then one may use whatever works in that particular situation. Hence most of the "inconsistencies" which you've found. Some of them can be fixed, some can't, but it doesn't mean that we should replace the three rules with pages and pages of instructions covering every possible situation! The guidelines are supposed to provide general guidance, not step-by-step instructions on how to handle every possible combination of entities we may ever face. And the three general rules allow for more flexibility than two.

To answer your question about Shamkhal, there are multiple ways to handle the situation. If I were faced with this task today, I'd place the articles at "Shamkhal, Iran", "Shamkhal (urban-type settlement), Russia", and "Shamkhal railway station". However, I'd use this setup not because some rules tell me to do it just this way, but because no existing rule covers this situation neatly and this particular approach works reasonably well. If a better way is found, the three articles can always be re-named, but it doesn't mean that we need to add a separate rule to cover the situation of this type.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 17:07 (UTC)

Even if you are the only editor, you should follow WP rules. And if there is no need for Russia specific rules, you shouldn't invent too much. Shamkhal, Russia and Shamkhal railway station see Category:Railway stations in Russia, would be sufficient. Railway stations mostly don't go under the plain name. The only articles the almost always go without the type are localities. They use comma and that's it. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no rules to follow in this area; there are only guidelines to help editors make a choice. Again, these are guidelines, not policies. When the guidelines are inadequate (which in this example they are), it's perfectly alright to make an exception or to use whatever makes sense at the moment. As long as readers can find the article, it's all fine. And if it can be found easier under a certain title without having to click through several pages, it's even better. There's no need to re-write the guidelines for that, especially if the re-written version will no longer conform with the real state of the matters!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)

But you are enforcing your self-made "guidelines" on others . As long as readers can find the article, it's all fine. - Why then, you make so much drama? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it's easier to find an article about an urban-type settlement when it is labeled as such instead of generic "Russia", especially when the other entity is also in Russia? The title needs to be disambiguated anyway, so what use is there in choosing a less specific disambiguator? Just because a generic guideline tells us so? Do we not have our own heads to think with?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 18:06 (UTC)

But lakes almost ever use the word "lake" in the name. The comma is very much pointing that the article is about a locality. And, there can be other settlements called Khasan, e.g. Khasan, Pakistan. WP is far from being complete. Shield the articles from the need for moving around in the next 10 years, by applying ", Russia" in cases where a disambiguator is needed anyway already. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's "pointing" for you and me, not your average Joe seeking to find info about "something called X in Russia". If Joe is looking for "X Mountain" in Russia, a list such as "X Lake", "X (cake)", "X, Russia" isn't even telling him that we don't have an article about the mountain; it'll just lead him to click through "X, Russia" and be disappointed. A list such as "X Lake", "X (cake)", "X (rural locality)" at least makes it abundantly clear that we have nothing about the mountain. Similarly, if a Jane looking for the Russian village, the first list gives her no clues that the entry she seeks is the last one, while the second list makes the selection immediately obvious. All in all, you are sacrificing readers' convenience just to prevent us from moving an article on the off-chance something else pops up. That's just wrong.

And if another place, outside of Russia, turns up, then of course the articles will need to be moved and the disambig page edited accordingly, but I don't see the current rules interfering with that process at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 18:44 (UTC)

So, how come...

...I didn't get an invitation? Canvassing is a sin, you know...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 18:49 (UTC)

What is else is the above than an invite? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

My bad, apologies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 19:30 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	You seem to have put a lot of energy into articles on Geography of Russia. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks. I should note, however, that I would have done a lot more of said writing if I didn't have to spend oodles of time on revisiting perfectly functional guidelines because someone is itching to improve them just for the heck of it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 19:46 (UTC)

I help you to have less guidelines, so you need less time to spend on revisiting ;-). Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing is making them less flexible and more confusing, which doesn't really help any. Not mentioning parenthetical disambiguators doesn't magically rid us of all the situations where using them is an acceptable (or only) solution; it just removes the explanation of their use from public view. But anyhoo, thanks for the barnstar all the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2011; 20:10 (UTC)

Have a good summer!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the skillful and intelligent comments in defence of your views. GreyHood 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that I have to support a different position. As I should say, Ezhiki is my friend, but unfortunately I don't like the parenthesis...

I'm going to be absent from wiki for some time, perhaps a pair of weeks, but maybe more. (That's both good and bad news for you ;) on one hand, I won't be able to support "X, Russia" proposal anymore, and on the other hand you have been very close to convince me to change my vote.. )

Please watch for the task forces and assessment for the period of my vacation.

So, see you later! Cheers! GreyHood 09:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It does make me feel better that the problem is not so much with my arguments as it is with people's personal tastes clouding their judgement :)

Seriously, though, no problem. We all have different views on some matters. If the proposal doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. If it does, at least I can feel comfortable knowing that I put up a good fight.

I hope you have a great vacation and will return to editing refreshed and invigorated. It goes without saying that I'll keep an eye on the assessments and will continue with my daily batches.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)

All-Russia People's Front

Hi! can u please help expanding this article using ur russian reading skills? (there is quiet big article in russian wikipedia). Have good day! Superzohar Talk 16:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I could help with that article as soon as I have some time. I'm quite busy now, so maybe in 1-2 weeks. Nanobear (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you could do that, it'd be great. I'm not big on doing translations, and the topic isn't something I'd feel excited to work on anyway. In a couple of weeks right after the industry of the Kola Peninsula, right? :)))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:43 (UTC)

Maps

I notice we now have a few svg like File:Outline Map of Altai Krai.svg but without the inserts. Can you ask our Russian friend to kindly add inserts to the maps so we can remove the double maps in the infoboxes?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the guy is around much any more. I asked him about the other thing you wanted a few months back, and I never got a response. His last edit in ru_wiki was in February.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2011; 13:45 (UTC)

Sergey Shoygu vs. Sergei Shoigu

Could you remind me again why we spell his name Sergey Shoygu instead of Sergei Shoigu on Misplaced Pages. The reason I ask is because I came across this recent article on CNN that spells his name Sergei Shoigu . I previously cited the tuvaonline.ru news site that spells his name with an i. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither spelling is incorrect; it's just different romanization systems. We mostly follow the BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, but multiple other systems exist, too. All systems enjoy some use, and even the same organization may not always follow just one consistently.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2011; 13:30 (UTC)

Block needed

Hi Ezhik, can you look at this. Warning has been given, perhaps a block is clearly in order though as well. --Russavia 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it to my watch and will block after another incident. Those IP cowards are getting tiresome!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 13, 2011; 17:35 (UTC)

A little request

Hello! Would you mind revising the article Tarkhankut Lighthouse which I created quite long ago and fixing grammar and vocabulary at least where it's really worrisome? Frankly speaking, I supposed the article to be noticed swiftly by participants of the respective projects but now the readers are either rare or seemingly indifferent to it. Should any doubts occur, the Ukrainian version, also composed by me earlier, was the source. Thanks ahead! --Microcell (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular you want me to look at? I could copyedit it a bit, but in general it's OK for a Start-class article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:23 (UTC)

Tarku

Tarku in India and Nepal. Can you find one Russia, see Ghazi Muhammad. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no inhabited localities in Russia called "Tarku". The Ghazi Muhammad article should link to Tarki (which is called "Таргъу" in Kumyk, which is why it is currently spelled "Tarku").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:26 (UTC)

Thanks. Won't interfere with spelling, created Tarku, Dagestan as redirect. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Russian magazines

You might have something on Rabotnitsa and Zdoroviye.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have anything specific, but if you have anything in mind for me to find, shoot. My mother used to subscribe to Rabotnitsa in Soviet times, by the way :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:28 (UTC)

Any chance you could find some suitable articles to add a Category:Communist magazines to?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can try. I don't think the English Misplaced Pages has many articles about Soviet magazines, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:48 (UTC)

Here's one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:51 (UTC)

Set indices on populated places in Russia

Renaming proposed at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 19#Category:Set indices on Russian inhabited localities. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:29 (UTC)

User incl

You must have been angry to have chosen to start a deletion request for populated place? I would appreciate WP has an article on populated place /and/ on inhabited locality. Or the latter mentioned within the former. Can you bring any sources for the term "inhabited locality" into the article space? For the record, I am not happy with "populated place", since some of them are not populated anymore, a problem one does not have with "settlement". Also locality might be a good general term, and at the end, all "populated places" could be moved to "inhabited locality" or populated locality ().

Please can we work on sorting this out, without content deletion? Thanks for the kitten. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't nominate it because I was angry (I thought you knew me better than that), and even though I am frustrated in general, that's not the reason either. The only reason I nominated it is because it was a disgraceful stub about a non-notable concept. If someone expands it to show notability and supplies references (a process that I see is already ongoing), that'll be great, but otherwise there just isn't a reason to keep that little abomination around. I wish I could help with expanding it myself, but you are keeping me rather busy in half a dozen other discussions which I barely keep up with, and I don't want to pile up yet another task on top of that.

Also, I don't have any problem with using the term "populated place" (or any of the other synonyms, except "settlement", which is just too confusing in the context of several countries) to name the upper level categories. The purpose of the upper level categories is to provide means to readers so they could easily compare the same concept across many different countries, so it makes sense for the terminology to be uniform (horizontally). However, once the reader locates the category being sought, there just isn't a need to stick with generic terminology any longer—using more specific terminology in the context of that particular country is a lot more helpful (not to mention encyclopedic). There is even less need to use the generic terminology in the actual articles. If more precise and/or more common terms are used in a particular context, that's what we should be using, too. If multiple terms exist, we should use the one that's more common than the others. That's all I'm trying to convey. I find the notion that the choice of terminology in our articles should be guided by the choice of terminology for our upper-level category names rather revolting, is all. I thought Wikipedians stopped doing that years ago, but apparently not everyone is yet on board.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 13:27 (UTC)

Please, transfer your knowledge of "more precise and/or more common" into the article space. Otherwise it looks just like your private opinion and you will have to repeat it again and again to users. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't. There are things one can look up and add as references, and there are things one learns from observation. I've read dozens of books on the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia, and most of them use the term "inhabited localities" when they describe the concept with any specificity, but none would directly say that "'inhabited localities' is the term used to refer to legally defined areas of human settlement in Russia", because it is not the term by the virtue of some mandate, but merely by the virtue of usage in a certain context. The term also fits nicely into the whole urban/rural localities classification terminology, which, to me at least, makes the choice a no-brainer. In other words, I stick with the view that if multiple translations of the same term exist, the one that fits best into the encyclopedic infrastructure should be preferred. You seem to stick with the view that if multiple translations of the same term exist, the one that fits best into the auxiliary (navigational) infrastructure should be preferred. However, since we are building an encyclopedia (where content is supposed to be king), I can't subscribe to that view.

Compare it to the situation around "populated places". It's not hard to find a bunch of generic definitions, but you will not find a source confirming it's the preferred choice when one needs to call areas of human habitation something. We just agree that, in general, it is, based on what the sources out there tend to use. It's not something we can reference, but it's something we can agree on. There never had been a discussion which established that we should be using this term in all contexts, though; the consensus was merely regarding the upper-level categories.

All in all, if you can't or aren't willing to accept my testimony in good faith, just say so. I seem to be the only person interested in the classification of the inhabited localities in Russia anyway—something I have always thought of as being an asset, because I can contribute something unique that others can't—but it seems that others (and, unfortunately, you) prefer to think of this situation as if I were trying to impose my "personal opinions" in an area no one else really has a clue about. If Wikipedians don't want my services in this area, I'll be happy to free up the next seven years of my life for doing something more productive. I most certainly can't be very productive in an environment where the opinions of an editor with a knowledge of some pretty esoteric (yet encyclopedic) matters are routinely dismissed in favor of simplistic (and occasionally plain incorrect) approaches and where that editor is forced to waste all his available time on "improving the guidelines" instead of being able to work on the only thing that really matters—the content. When people (not you) say in my face that their main reason for arguing with me is "to show me my place", when most of the people opposing my views never even contribute to Russia-related articles yet keep following me to each new Russia-related discussion I happen to be (or have been) a part of, when they find my arguments "convincing" but don't support them strictly because they have a strong personal preference of their own, all that is not exactly an incentive to keep contributing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 14:26 (UTC)

You might find contributing more pleasurable if you learned to go with the flow, sometimes. I do this by mostly ignoring my own personal preferences (even in areas where I'm more knowledgeable than most), and by attempting to understand what "everybody else" wants. Mlm42 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That'd be a great piece of advice if my goal here were to spend time pleasurably. As it stands, I am here to contribute to an area of knowledge no one else is willing to contribute, which means there is no "flow". It is one thing to disagree with a group of fellow editors who might have different views on a subject but are all knowledgeable about it. It's a different thing entirely to disagree with a group of editors who are arguing with you not for the sake of the readers, not for the sake of the content, but for the sake of maintaining integrity of the guidelines and regulations regardless of whether doing so makes sense in the context or not. Even that wouldn't be so bad if those editors were at least willing to listen to the reasons being presented to them, but they either don't listen at all, or stick to personal preferences of their own, or say something like "I don't understand any of it, but I will oppose because someone else did". It's not really that hard to understand what "everybody else" wants here—they want the problem gone, and dismissing it or bundling it with the ways of doing vaguely similar things is often the easiest way to do so. It takes care of the problem alright, but Misplaced Pages does not become better as a result. And according to you, my only option is to stop caring about subject-specific problems if I want to continue editing or perhaps to switch to editing less esoteric subjects, those with a "flow". Great. I truly don't know sometimes why I bother contributing at all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 17:15 (UTC)

I just mean that it's not worth fighting over every tiny issue - it's a waste of your time. If the rest of Misplaced Pages is doing something (like using the term "populated place" in category names), why fight it? Just go with it. It doesn't really matter anyway. Being grumpy, ranting about it, and generally showing diva-ish behaviour, isn't really going to make anyone happy, including yourself.

And yes, I think you'd do well to consider subscribing to Misplaced Pages:Don't-give-a-fuckism. Mlm42 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The funny thing is that these "tiny issues" are a waste of time for pretty much all people involved and lead to nothing constructive no matter what the outcome is. They affect no one but the editors working on the administrative-territorial divisions of Russia (which most of the time, unfortunately, happens to be just me) and the readers who are interested in understanding this topic in any kind of depth (which there aren't that numerous either), yet the people complaining about them and chasing me around belong to neither of those two groups. I have no problem with Misplaced Pages using artificial or arbitrary constructs to name the upper-level categories which contain artificial or arbitrary collections of things (like most, if not all, of the "populated places in Foo" cats). I am, however, very much against transferring these arbitrary conventions to the article space or to the names of categories which are supposed to be based on articles. That's a fight worth fighting, because the quality of the encyclopedia is at stake.

I wish I could just ignore these things and merrily go about contributing stuff in a haphazard manner, but there is so much material involved that the importance of organizing it all efficiently is paramount, yet the organizational efforts is those folks' primary target. Hell, of course any organizational structure can always be improved! It shouldn't be improved for the sake of improvement, though; the improvements should affect the actual articles or solve actual problems! Yet it never ends. Six years ago an editor wanted, among a bunch of other silly things, to rename most first-level administrative divisions of all non-English-speaking countries to "provinces" regardless of whether that's the term used by the sources or not; three years ago the argument was about how the term "settlement" is the best one, like, ever, and should be used whenever possible (my opposition to that, by the way, played a part in editors finally gathering together and replacing "settlements" with more sensible, although not perfect, "populated places"); now we have a similar group arguing that "populated places" is the way to go, always and regardless of regional peculiarities and preferences. It's almost seems like we have a group of "editors" whose only purpose and joy is in writing the guidelines and ordering others around instead of contributing to articles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 19:47 (UTC)

Should I pressume that you are calling me an Apparatchik (a derogatory term I've never heard of), or were you referring to someone else? And I think it's a bit sad that you believe that "the quality of the encyclopedia is at stake", if we use the term "populated place" instead of "inhabited locality" in a category name. It's not even article content - it's a category name. Sheesh. No wonder you seem so stressed. Sometimes you just have to learn to let it go. Changes like this can be done with bots, and most readers don't even know what categories are.. so it's really not worth worrying about. Mlm42 (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not calling you anything, I'm just ranting at no one in particular and you happen to be around (you can run while it's not too late :)). Also, while I did have several specific people in mind when making the apparatchik remark, you aren't one of them. However, if you think the shoe fits... well, that'd be sad, too.

Another sad thing is that you don't seem to realize that to an uninvolved person the problems of someone else always seem easy to fix and nothing of significance is ever at stake. The bigger picture only starts to uncover once you dig deeper (and in this case, a lot deeper). Problem is, most of my opponents not only aren't willing to dig deeper, they aren't willing to dig at all, aren't interested in hearing out the counter-arguments, and generally don't give any sort of fuck about the content affected by the changes. All they are interested in is their opinions, which they aren't even willing to substantiate or to explain how they are better on the content side. Did you notice how I usually deconstruct each and every argument thrown at me? And did you notice how nothing of the sort ever comes back in return? The only things that come back in return are circular reasoning, "others do it differently and there are many more of them" sort of arguments, and "I have no idea what it's about but I'll oppose anyway" remarks (do prove me wrong). Ever tried to explain the importance of anything in such an environment?

Cat names aren't the only thing affected, by the way. Bogdan's ultimate goal is to rename a bunch of articles and to replace much of the terminology (here's the first step; by all means, join), only he isn't willing to do any of the maintenance work himself. Successfully moved categories are one of his main "arguments" for changing articles. Are you still wondering why I am frustrated? He mentions bots, too. Bots, however, aren't magical beings which will fix everything for us; they need to be programmed properly, and the consequences of many of Bogdan's proposed changes wouldn't be easy to fix even with the bots. What gives?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 20, 2011; 20:44 (UTC)

I think generally Misplaced Pages editors have open minds about things; I also think they generally do not want to engage in lengthy debates about things they don't care about.. but they might still weigh in and leave. 1000+ character-long posts may or may not be read by everyone who weighs into a dispute. In terms of convincing people of something, a concise, powerful, single sentence argument is going to be much more effective than a detailed multi-paragraph rant.

For example, after reading much of the discussion, I still don't understand the Talk:Types of inhabited localities in Russia#Move to Types of populated places in Russia dispute.. this is an article about the different kinds of places where people live in Russia. The first sentence of the article has a citation needed tag.. the more pressing questions for me are: why do we have this article? (Would it survive an AfD?) Is the first sentence original research? (If not, what is the source of this information?) Mlm42 (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, people not reading the discussions in which they participate is not a problem intrinsic to Misplaced Pages. One could argue that's the whole reason why democracy never works as well as it's supposed to! It is, however, an interesting question why some people find it compelling to contribute to a discussion about a topic they neither care nor know about... is it just to be heard? If so, such !votes should be weighed accordingly.

Regarding the article, yours are the questions I can live with and are very good questions to ask. I'm not sure why the first sentence has a citation needed tag, though. That sentence serves as a lead—a summary of the article written with a higher degree of generality, and as such doesn't really need a citation. Lead citations are usually needed only when the lead statements are controversial or aren't otherwise supported by what the main article says. Do you find that the lead does not summarize the article contents? Does the article give no indication that the classification system used in Russia indeed possesses some peculiarities other countries lack? Of course, one sentence makes a sucky lead in any case, the article itself is far from being complete, and one could argue that any country's classification system is peculiar in its own way. So, if you have a better suggestion about how the lead should be worded, go right ahead.

As for why we have this article, I'm not sure what you mean. Why do we have any articles at all? It's a valid encyclopedic topic, is it not? The classification exists; where else would we talk about it?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 14:08 (UTC)

A beer for you!

It looks like you really need one. Hopefully you don't let Misplaced Pages eat you alive. Mlm42 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be too late for not being eaten alive, but thanks for the gesture anyway. You know there is a problem when alcoholism seems to be a better option than editing Misplaced Pages :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 13:42 (UTC)

FYI

Thanks for the heads up, I must admit, I was rather sad to hear it! What is the policy regarding former districts, obviously there would be the relevant comments in the articles for the districts into which they were absorbed, but is there scope for a "former districts" section in the Chukotka nav box? How would they be referred in the Administrative divisions of chukotka autonomous okrug article? Are they listed separately as former districts, or expunged altogether? Fenix down (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a policy about the former districts, nor do we have enough articles about them to establish how they are normally dealt with. I'd say do whatever feels right :) When we have more than a few such articles, we could start thinking about how to organize them best.

As for mentioning them elsewhere, the historical information like this indeed belongs in the "administrative divisions of XXX" articles. The one about Chukotka is a barebones liststub, but that's where the information ultimately should go (compare, for example, with how Murmansk Oblast or Adygea are done). The navbox, that I'm not so sure about. It's probably OK to include the historical districts in Chukotka's, but for some other federal subjects the lists of historical districts will contain dozens and dozens names; including them all in addition to current districts would make the navboxes very unwieldy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 22, 2011; 15:34 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Non-sovereign territories templates

Non-sovereign territories templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:Taskforces

Well, since criminals are related to law enforcement and the latter is related to politics we should use the Politics of Russia task force, isn't it? GreyHood 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That was my line of thought, too, but it is not obvious at the first glance and looks quite weird. Perhaps we should have a taskforce for all things legal?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 16:31 (UTC)

I thought about renaming "Politics of Russia task force" into something like "Politics and law of Russia task force" or "Politics and law enforcement in Russia task force".. GreyHood 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

That could work. "Law" is probably better than "law enforcement", as it is broader and could include legal stuff that would otherwise have to be put under "science".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:14 (UTC)

Indeed, "Politics and law" is better. If you feel we need the change (personally I'm OK without it, but that's a matter of habit), please rename the relevant pages (though, what about the bot-generated content?). GreyHood 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have time for this now, but I'll add it to my to-do list for later (or, if you want to try taking care of this yourself, you are more than welcome to). I'm not sure about the bot-generated content either, but it should be easy enough to figure it out once we start digging. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2011; 17:45 (UTC)

City vs. federal subject again

Do you notice something wrong with the infobox here? Colchicum (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, not really... There are a couple minor things that could use a tweak, but overall it looks fine to me. Could you elaborate what's wrong? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 13:13 (UTC)

I mean "rank within Russia". It is not really "2nd", is it? Colchicum (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I've made the corrections. Of course, the rank should be the same as on the page the link is pointing to. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 15:24 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, but it is only a short-term solution, which will last until someone else introduces the same very likely error again. The last one survived long enough to worry about it. Colchicum (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, editors just need to pay attention to what it is they are changing :) I sure screwed up myself this time, but that's not a good excuse.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)

Primorsky Krai

I switched the location map template with a new map with window. Please update.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2011; 17:08 (UTC)

Boris Gmyrya

Hi vsem yejikam! Vy ne mogli by proverit my English. Spasibo. Please check my English. Thank you. --Lawrentia (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I have copyedited it a bit. I wasn't sure about what some of the sentences were supposed to convey, so please double-check that I didn't accidentally twist their meaning. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2011; 14:29 (UTC)

Infobox for Russian subdivisions

Hi Ezhiki! I noticed that the current infobox for Russian federal districts seems to be outdated and somewhat ugly when compared to the ones found in other articles, so I tried to rework it a little, and since you've been here quite a bit longer than I have and you edit many Russian-related articles, I wanted to ask you for an opinion. Do you think that my edit (which you can find here) is an improvement over the current version? Thank you for your time! --Lady Pablo (talk) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Lady Pablo! First of all, thank you for your time and interest in this! It's always good to have another pair of eyes looking at these templates.

As for the re-design itself, I'm really of two minds about it. I do very much like that your version is not as tall as the current one and that it looks a lot cleaner overall (design and visual appeals are not really my fortes :)). On the down side, I've noticed the following:

• your version has no grouping headings, which makes particular groups of data harder to find—it all just flows continuously. Mind you, I'm not saying that the current green blobs are the best way to address this, but some sort of grouping cues would certainly be helpful. I just don't think separators alone do the job well enough.
• the new version is a wrapper around {{Infobox Settlement}}. In the interests of full disclosure, I should note that I've never been a fan of that particular infobox. One can do a lot of things with it, sure, but only some of those things would be done well, and there is little flexibility in how things can be done (it's kind of like Apple products :)). What's especially hard to control is where a particular line would go in the overall structure (with your example, for instance, the names in English and Russian really shouldn't be split by the federal subject type descriptor, and the flag and coat of arms should follow the map, not precede it). Of course, with some ingenuity, one can make certain lines appear in certain places, but that same effect can be achieved a lot easier by using generic building blocks instead. Now, don't take me wrong, the current version is not an epitome of flexibility. It is quite the opposite, but that's because it is the last of the templates on my to-do list which I was planning to re-design until you beat me to it :) My idea was to use the same approach as in, for example, {{Infobox Russian district}}, which is built solely on the generic {{Infobox}} template and where re-arranging the building blocks or adding new ones can be done in a snap.
• I haven't looked at the code closely, but I've noticed that while you are passing the 2002 Census parameters to the template, they don't all show up in the output. I understand how showing both the 2002 Census and 2010 Census results seems redundant, but right now it's a necessity, because the 2010 results aren't yet finalized. Once they are, the 2002 Census lines can be taken out completely, including from the template code. The "latest" population, would still be there, of course (right now it is the 2010 Census results which are the latest, so that parameter is never filled out).

This is probably a lot more feedback than you hoped for, but I hope it's constructive. I'll be thrilled to hear your opinion in more detail in return! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 8, 2011; 14:01 (UTC)

I have made a few changes to the template (the new version is the one in the middle). Cheers, Lady Pablo (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this should work! It certainly looks much nicer than the current version. Thank you! Just a few minor things:

• the head/governor information should come before legislature, as is customary;
• the head, head name, legislature, and administrative center lines lost their reference tags;
• the area figure needs to be dated, because borders do occasionally change, and the value is used to calculate the population density (possibly using the population count from a different year when nothing better is available);
• the density line lost its explanatory note, and since it is bundled with the rest of the census data, one can get an impression that the value of density also comes from the census sheets, which is not true;
• with "urban" vs. "rural", it's just "rural", not "rural area". The percentage shows the urban/rural population distribution, not the area distribution;
• the "website" line probably doesn't need the "website" label. What do you think about just centering it as it is done in the district infobox?
• "languages" should really be "official languages", otherwise the label gives an impression that all of the major languages spoken in the federal subject should be listed there;
• I'm not sure about the location of the "holiday" line at the very bottom;
• are you planning to try out wrapping this template around {{Infobox}}, or is this your final version?

Regarding the order of the symbols vs the map, it's not so much about the preference, as it is about addressing the readers' needs. The image at the top of the infobox would often be the only image readers see when they first load the page (especially on smaller resolution screens), and the map immediately answers the question of "where", which is the first question readers looking to familiarize themselves with the topic would ask. The flag/coat look nice, but don't really answer any immediate questions, which is why it makes sense to move them down.

Also, I would appreciate your opinion about the charter/constitution line. While each charter/constitution should ideally have their own article, currently none does, so the link on this line is always red. One could also argue that it is not the kind of link that's important in an infobox and is better covered by the text. Do you have an opinion about this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2011; 13:49 (UTC)

Gennady (Archbishop of Novgorod)

Suggest moving to Gennady of Novgorod, the name under which the subject is venerated and which corresponds to other wikipedias. For some reasons sometimes I can move articles over redirect and sometimes can't, strange. GreyHood 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You can only move an article over a redirect when that redirect constitutes the whole editing history. "Gennady of Novgorod" has a bot edit on top of the original redirect, which requires deletion.

I have moved the article to match the naming scheme in Category:Russian saints. There are also a couple more parenthesized titles in that cat you might want to look at, but most are titled "Religionist of Foo", so it makes perfect sense to unify them all that way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 10, 2011; 13:42 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll look at other titles, and thanks for the move and explanation. GreyHood 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

FA nominee

Hi, Ezhiki. Could you help me nominate the article Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union for featured articles? Please put this article on the appropriate page of the Misplaced Pages. After you had done it last time, this article has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. So it seems to me that you bring luck. I have improved the article since its recent nomination. Thank you in advance. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about good luck—you'd probably be better off thanking the person who did the GA review! All I did was add a line to a page where it was then picked up by a bot :)

As for the FAC submission, I'll be happy to help with it as well, but please note that before an article can be nominated, it should undergo a peer review. The process consists of five easy steps, and while I can certainly submit the article for peer review for you, it makes more sense if you do it yourself, because it's you who'll be the one answering the questions and addressing concerns anyway. Once the peer review is finished, the article can be moved on to FAC.

By the way, great job on expanding that article! It's a very interesting and educational read. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 11, 2011; 13:38 (UTC)

The point is that corresponding articles related to this topic in the Russian Misplaced Pages were the subject of a long conflict between users and were considered as a challenge to struggle for preventing them from being nominated for the good or featured articles. I would not like the English Misplaced Pages to have the same conflict. That is why I would like you to submit this article for peer review and help me. Psychiatrick (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you are being stalked by your opponents from ru_wiki, I don't see why you would have the same problems here, and it would be you fending off the questions which will come up during the peer review anyway. Submitting a nomination involves going through five mostly procedural (and easy) steps, but if you insist, I'll submit it for peer review next week. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 19:03 (UTC)

From my previous experience, I know that the procedure for peer reviewing and nominating an article is difficult and brings a user nothing but stress at best or blocks at worst. To start this procedure, I need to feel at least a little bit of moral support that I don’t feel now. Putting an article on the page for peer review can be a sort of moral support. Maybe I’ll nominate this article in half a year. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If me nominating this article for peer review would count as moral support and help you deal with the questions better, then I will gladly do so :) I was just making sure. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 21:52 (UTC)

Have a cat lol

Ezhiki even if we disagree on that references thing I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your input and believe that the template has improved because of it! Let's work together again some time soon ok?

Lady Pablo (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

What an ugly little creature :) Thanks!

Just so you know, I do appreciate your input and effort just as much (even though it probably doesn't show :)) The template has certainly improved, and disagreements are a part of progress. I'll be happy to work with you in the future. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 14:27 (UTC)

Give Ezhiki a hedgehog next time ;) Or better a big beautiful porcupine ))) GreyHood 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not a porcupine! Those abominations, bah!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2011; 15:54 (UTC)

OMG whatwasdat ?&!? Pork&pine? That's indeed would be toooo much unhealthy attitude ;))) GreyHood 16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Картина «Васильки» С. Осипова

• Добрый день Коллега, не мог удержаться и не пригласить вас на это обсуждение, которому предшествовало это обсуждение номинации, длившееся более месяца. Речь идёт о нравах участников в связи с обсуждением русской версии статьи Cornflowers (painting). Без комментариев. С уважением, Leningradartist (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

MKAD

Suggest moving to Moscow Ring Road. This would correspond better to the naming of Russian article; MKAD is an abbreviation not widely used or recognizable outside of Russia. GreyHood 22:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, currently there are several Russia-related requested moves under discussion. GreyHood 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

So, it it going to be "Moscow Ring Road", or "Moscow ring road"? :) I suggest we wait for the outcome of the St. Petersburg Ring Road request before the move. Myself, I don't have a preference either way (shocking, eh? :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 13:42 (UTC)

OK! GreyHood 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Nagatinsky Zaton

Btw again, Nagatinsky Zaton is capitalized in the Russian wiki. And a number of official cites like this and this use capitalized version. Given this inconsistency, I'd suggest to use capitalized version since it is more in accordance with general naming customs. GreyHood 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Russian wiki is hardly an authoritative source, and the official websites screw up every now and then, too. The applicable laws of Moscow is where the correct spelling should be looked up, and those consistently do not capitalize "zaton". Even with this, if you look closer, you'll see that only the website header has the word capitalized, and the actual texts don't. The GKS simply capitalized it wrong—even the bureaucrats don't pay that much attention to the details when those details aren't the primary focus of the document!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 13:44 (UTC)

There is also the problem of consistency with general English place naming customs, which strongly prefer capitalized names. I'm not sure why we should strictly follow the laws of Moscow in this case. The popular usage of capitalized version even in Russian official sources give us an excuse to ignore those laws and uphold the general naming style, and we can't follow those laws to the letter anyway, because we use Moscow and not Moskva. GreyHood 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking closer at all those official cites I found they use both versions extensively, often at the same page. Looking on the results of the Google search the capitalized version seems to be more popular. GreyHood 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? Because it is the the laws which specify what the correct name is, and we, as an encyclopedia, should be striving to use what's correct? Moskva vs. Moscow isn't really a valid analogy, because the use of "Moscow" can be verified by literally thousands of independent reliable English sources, while the name of this district would only be found in a handful of publications most of which are neither reliable nor even on the subject of the district's name. In other words, there is no "common English name" to use, and in such cases we normally romanize the official name verbatim (including the choice of capitalization). Doing otherwise would be original research on our part.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 14:04 (UTC)

Than why we capitalize District if "район" is not capitalized in the Russian texts? Your approach has this obvious fallacy. Why in some cases we apply general English language rules and in other cases ignore it, just because of a little inconsistency in Russian sources which has no serious consequences for Russian usage, but give birth to strange monsters in English? Nagatinsky zaton District looks way too funny, sorry. Capitalized - non-capitalized - capitalized - this is totally against the English language naming style, according to my experience. In fact, such capitalization sequence is against almost any language naming style I suppose. Capitalized descriptor, which is of lower significance, and non-capitalized part of the name, which is of higher significance. GreyHood 14:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no fallacy. The word "district" is not a part of the proper name; it is a designation, and it is customary to capitalize designations in English. We do the same with "Street", "Oblast", etc. Designations are translated, while proper names are romanized. What's more, we have a certain leeway in choosing what the designation could be (for example, we stick with "district" when we refer to the raions in Russia, but the Ukrainian Wikiproject went with "raion" instead, even though there hardly is any difference between the two concepts), while we have no leeway with what the proper name should be—it is either what's commonly used in English, or, as in this case where no common English variant exists, we follow the guidelines the community previously agreed on (the transliteration clause of WP:UE). As you can see, the case is pretty well covered by the existing guidelines, and changing the absolutely correct spelling to something else just to fit some vague "style" concerns is simply not my idea of encyclopedicity. Just because a bunch of folks out there can't spell the name right doesn't mean we should follow them on the path off the cliff :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 14:45 (UTC)

Why should we romanize ignoring English naming customs (there seems to be no such proper names or expressions using the discussed capitalization scheme)? This seems to be a clear case of guideline inconsistency. Also, consider the scheme of naming hydronyms in English where the descriptor is always capitalized: Moscow River, Ladoga Lake, Clean Ponds etc. "Zaton" is also a hydronym descriptor, and as hydronym Nagatinsky Zaton should be capitalized, isn't it? GreyHood 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

While the word "zaton" on its own is indeed a hydronym descriptor, the article is not about a hydrological feature, it is about a district named after that feature (cf. Ulitsa Podbelsogo—an article about a metro station named after a street; the article about the actual street would be under Podbelskogo Street). In this case, "zaton" is a part of a proper name, and we never translate proper names—we either romanize them, or use whatever common English name that exists and can be verified. Since there is no common English name for this district, we romanize the official Russian name in full accordance with WP:UE (which says nothing about "English naming customs" on top of straight romanization). I see no inconsistency here whatsoever. I'm not aware of any guidelines which would put style issues over encyclopedic accuracy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 15:09 (UTC)

So you mean that as hydronym Nagatinsky Zaton is capitalized, but as a part of the district name it is not capitalized? You drive me mad %)

WP:UE doesn't say anything about capitalizing District or River, but nevertheless we always do it because there are general rules for English usage which are above guidelines. WP:UE says: In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader. We have to translate "район" in the discussed case, and in case of "затон" we should do a little minor thing - capitalize it for the greater understanding and consistency. Since capitalization doesn't hinder search, there is no problems with accuracy or encyclopedicity. Problems with accuracy or encyclopedicity would be if we claim that "Нагатинский Затон" is the official Russian name (and we wouldn't be entirely incorrect), but when translating it into English we should care of capitalization much less and not enforce Russian version over general English usage. GreyHood 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of driving you mad even further, no, that's only a part of what I'm saying :) The article about the hydrological feature would probably not be named "Nagatinsky Zaton"; it would be named "Nagatinsky XXX", where "XXX" is the best English term to which the Russian word "затон" translates (sorry, I'm drawing a blank on the actual translation. "Cove"?). Whether "XXX" itself should be capitalized depends solely on the conventions regarding the naming of similar hydrological features the community had previously agreed upon. I'd guess it probably would be, if the conventions for rivers, lakes, etc. are of any indication.

As for WP:UE, you are not looking at the applicable part of it. What it says is f there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject, which in this case means "do not capitalize 'zaton'". It further says that ames not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Adding one and one, we are transliterating the proper name, and we follow the conventions of the Russian language. The part about deciding whether and how to translate does not apply because we never ever translate proper Russian names. We either romanize them, or we use an established common English name (which isn't at all the same as "translating"; "translating" would be referring to Nizhny Novgorod as "Lower Newcity" despite "Nizhny Novgorod" being an established English usage). We do, of course, translate the descriptors, but as I previously mentioned, descriptors aren't a part of the proper names, and the decision of whether to capitalize them or not is based solely on the concept-specific guidelines we have.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 15:53 (UTC)

WP:UE doesn't say anything directly about capitalization. When it recommends to romanize or to translate it doesn't say we should capitalize or not capitalize. That's why we should turn to common sense, to established practices and to other guidelines (such as WP:CAPS), or to take WP:UE's own general recommendations and use them as to the question of capitalization. Why do you think the phrase f there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject refers to the conventions of Russian language and not English, or to the conventions of Russian language only? And why Russian language conventions should override general English conventions especially if we can easily avoid it (again, technically capitalization doesn't affect usability)?

As for the word "затон" I'm not sure it should be translated to English at all, because it combines the meanings of boatyard and backwater, and I'm not sure that backwater is used as a descriptor of hydronym names in English.

See again, the capitalization sequence in Nagatinsky zaton District is inacceptable. Firstly the entire expression could be considered a proper name and therefore should be capitalized in English (Proper name#Capitalization). If we consider just Nagatinsky Zaton a proper name and District a standalone descriptor, we again should capitalize Zaton. If we consider zaton to be a descriptor (as it is done in Russian), than there rises a question (in the case of English usage) why we capitalize one descriptor but do not capitalize another descriptor (and, importantly, preceding descriptor amidst an expression)? GreyHood 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, did you notice the above talk section about MKAD? GreyHood 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:UE is fairly all-encompassing when it says to follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject; to me, that includes all sorts of things, including capitalization. Additionally, when we romanize a word, we always retain its capitalization, so that's not a good argument either. If we don't retain capitalization, then we are doing something else, something which is not romanization or transliteration and I'd argue it's called "original research" :)

The phrase f there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject refers in this case to the conventions of the Russian language and not English because of what follows that sentence ( German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on).

On translating/not translating the word "zaton", I really have no opinion. However, whether we translate it or not, as long as it is used as a descriptor and not as a part of a proper name, its capitalization would be decided by the conventions we apply to the names of similar hydrological features.

The rest of the guidelines you found would not apply because WP:UE is a policy (which is crystal clear about how to deal with this situation), and policies take priority over the guidelines.

Finally, on the MKAD, I have no objections. I'm leaving for today, but I'll take care of it tomorrow, if you don't mind.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 17:04 (UTC)

General English language capitalization practices are above Misplaced Pages guidelines. Well, I see your logic and respect your opinion, but it seems I should file a move request. GreyHood 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(I'm still here for a few minutes). General English capitalization practices are not above the Misplaced Pages guidelines because there is no such thing as "general English capitalization practices" anyway. There are various style guides which often recommend contradictory things, which is why we have our own guidelines to deal with the most common situations in a uniform manner. If we didn't know 100% what the correct spelling in Russian is, or if the laws were contradictory on this point (as they are, every now in then, in other cases), I'd move this article to a capitalized version myself. "When in doubt, follow the general style"—I am a strong proponent of this approach. In this case, however, there is no doubt whatsoever on what the correct Russian name is, and our policy says flat out to "follow the conventions of the language" (romanizing it first, because the name is not in Latin alphabet). I can see how it is tempting to capitalize "zaton" anyway, but that would be neither honest to the encyclopedic spirit, nor logical. Logic, sadly, is one thing that fails and gets ignored often during the move requests...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 17:41 (UTC)

Capitalizing less important and less "proper" part of the name while not capitalizing more important and more proper one is not exactly logical. And again, romanization and capitalization are different things. GreyHood 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

previous consensus and Misplaced Pages guidelines

You think this meaningless phrase give you a licence to revert every edit I make to that template? You need to learn a thing or two about article ownership, and there's no guideline that says other people can't edit that particular template just because you created it and you didn't like my edit.--LK (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent version was not created by me, so your "ownership" remark is well off the mark. Now, if you have questions about why I reverted any particular part of your edits, I'll be happy to explain in more detail. There is only so much space in edit summary to explain the rationale, you know. At least I gave some explanation; you just removed a bunch of stuff without even trying!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 14:50 (UTC)

I've listed the problems with your edit, explaining my rationale in greater detail, at Template talk:Infobox Russian federal subject#Most recent edit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 15:01 (UTC)

Dmitriyevka

Hi Ezhiki, greetings again - hope you're having a good summer. At Russian Air Force there is a mention of an airfield at Dmitriyevka () in Orenburg Oblast, which I cannot find. Would it be possible to look up the details for this Dmitriyevka and add it to the set index article? Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, will do. There are, however, five rural localities called "Dmitriyevka" in Orenburg Oblast, so if you have anything to add, it might help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 15, 2011; 16:45 (UTC)

Thanks. I was careful to give you everything I had. Only other thing is that it obviously has an airfield in the vicinity. Sorry I can't help further... Buckshot06 (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem; I haven't even started looking when I asked the question :) I've greatly expanded the Dmitriyevka set index. The Dmitriyevka you need is Dmitriyevka, Sakmarsky District, Orenburg Oblast. Will this work for you, or do you need me to create that stub as well? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 16:45 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I've now located the airfield article at Chebenki, purely by chance. Is Chebenki/Dmitrevika in Sakmarsky District ? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, this is getting a little confusing :) What is the airfield called exactly, do you know? Dmitriyevka is located in Sakmarsky District, but the settlement of Chebenki is in neighboring Orenburgsky District. The airfield is located at some distance from them both, although it is closer to Dmitiryevka than it is to the settlement of Chebenki (and it is in Sakmarsky District). I'll move the air base article to Chebenki (air base) and put a dab page at Chebenki, but let me know if there's anything else I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 17:11 (UTC)

Sorry, as you've probably realised, I'm just working from the neglected work of long-departed User:Timvasquez. See User_talk:Timvasquez#A_statement_about_my_Russian_airport_work. Sorry I can't help further. Buckshot06 (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I've never seen that statement. It helps clarify the overall state of things quite a bit; thanks. Don't hesitate to let me know if you think of anything else I can help with. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 17:19 (UTC)

Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks

I might bore you with all those move requests, but I hope you like this one more than the others. Chaosdruid moved Trade route from the Varangians to the Greeks to Varangian-Byzantine trade route, apparently not realising the fact that the name is an idiomatic historical term. I've talked to Chaosdruid and he seems not to object to the idea of revert, but is reluctant to see for the procedure himself. Could you fix the name of the article? Cheers! GreyHood 21:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, we have already fixed the issue ourselves. For some reason I was able to move the article to the old title. GreyHood 22:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Russian populated places articles deleted

Hello again! Please look here. Misplaced Pages rules sometimes lead to quite unproductive results. GreyHood 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation with this is, unfortunately, more complicated than it may seem. I'll repair what I can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 14:09 (UTC)

Thx for fixing this! GreyHood 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 16:41 (UTC)

Hassan

Hassan or Hasan or Khasan are written the same in Cyrillic alphabet - Хасан. Therefore I think my action was correct. What do you think? Casesdailyhyui (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it were Russian Misplaced Pages, you'd have a point :) In English Misplaced Pages, places in Russia called "Хасан" are romanized as "Khasan", and these names have completely different etymology from the rest of Has(s)ans on another dab, so a separate dab is doubly warranted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 16, 2011; 18:29 (UTC)

Town

Hello! Like you, I learned in Russian/Soviet school. Moreover, I live in Russia. Therefore I know that the Russian/Soviet dictionaries translate town as город, and посёлок as settlement. However, they are based on the United Kingdom realities of the XX century. Such dictionaries never are written from scratch nowadays. A new dictionary is simply an old dictionary with some extensions.

In the UK, may cites became towns in the XIX-XX centuries, but they are cities now:

The abolition of some corporate bodies as part of successive local government reforms, beginning with the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act 1840, has deprived some ancient cities of their status. However, letters patent have been issued for most of the affected cities to ensure the continuation or restoration of their status. At present, Rochester, Perth and Elgin are the only former cities in the United Kingdom.

The situation in the USA is known to you better than to me:

In most places, town refers to a small incorporated municipality of less than 10,000 people, although some of these municipalities may be called "cities."

The word "settlement" has much wider meaning than посёлок now:

The term may include hamlets, villages, towns and cities.

Therefore, the following statement is obsolete:

Unlike English, the Russian language does not distinguish the terms "city" and "town"—both are translated as "город" (gorod).

Today the word "town" better corresponds to "посёлок", although these words are not fully equivalent. Ufim (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your comment, but I think we are talking about completely different things here. I don't at all disagree with the points you mentioned above—they are entirely correct. The problem is that you are talking about how Russians translate the English word "town", while the article in question deals with the concept of a town, and the "Russia" section deals with the concept of a town in Russia. The concept is, of course, described by the Russian word "город", which in turn can be translated as either "city" or "town", which is what the statement in question is about. Perhaps the sentence should be revised to make its meaning more clear, but it is most certainly neither wrong nor obsolete.

The "factual errors" I was referring to in my edit summary are with regards to the criteria an inhabited locality needs to meet in order to qualify for the city/town status. In your revision, you state that in Russia, a settlement can become city (gorod) only if it has more than 12000 inhabitants and the occupation of no less than 85% of inhabitants must be other than agriculture. That was true in the Soviet times, but is no longer the case after the adoption of the 1993 Constitution. Currently, the criteria are set by each federal subject individually; there is no federal regulation to that effect. While it is true that many federal subjects retained the Soviet set of criteria in some form, others did in fact diverge from it (in Khabarovsk Krai, for example, the 12,000 population limit is retained for the towns of district significance, but the limit for the towns of krai significance is 50,000, and the agricultural aspect is no longer numerically defined, while in Dagestan there is no district/republican aspect and the threshold is 50,000 for all cities/town; the agricultural aspect is also not explicitly defined).

Hope this clarifies the rationale behind my edit. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 17, 2011; 13:40 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Ufim (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Zyryanka

Hi Ezhiki. Can you create a dab page for this? I created an article on the town in Sakha but there are others with the same name.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.

On an unrelated note, may I ask when you are planning to finish your work on the districts of Russia? Some of those are a horrendous mess, and need fixing ASAP. Why didn't you ask me to create proper templates for them at least? You know I would have been happy to oblige (witness my earlier collaboration with Starzynka). Right now we have several hundred useless stubs which add nothing of value to what is said on the corresponding "administrative divisions of..." pages, and what little they do add is either incorrect or improperly attributed. This was very disappointing, what you did... Did they replace you with the evil Blofeld from several years ago or something? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 17:18 (UTC)

That's not very nice, seems as I spent several hours creating them, and that they are set up with the population, area and others ready to be expanded. I gather you haven't clicked edit on the pages and seen what is hidden? I tried to create them to they are in a position in which they are can be easily expanded. Of course nothing is perfect for you and you pick out the negative things, like in some districts it may be an urban type settlement others a rural being the seat but is minimal I think. The 1989, 2002 and 2009/2010 templates are there to simply be added to. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Not very nice? Are you pulling my leg or something? Let me say this once again—we have several hundred stubs which are either incorrect or improperly attributed. Every single one of them needs to be corrected. Every. Single. One. (well, OK, maybe 90%, but still). And until someone actually corrects them, they'll just sit there spreading misinformation. Spending several hours on something like that is nothing to be proud of!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 17:29 (UTC)

You know you come across as a major control freak. Unless anything is done your way you scoff at it. And don't give me the usual rant about being a "one man band" and how thou art not create an article on a Russian subject because Master Ezhiki can't take the "hrrendous workload". We should have had articles on the districts at least five years ago. As they stand they are in a position to be expanded. Of course it would help if I spoke Russian fluently and could fully expand them all. Anyway I recall asking you to help me create the remaining districts a while back and you weren't interested. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

So where are these errors enmasse then Ezhiki? Or are they simply minor issues which can be corrected when population and data is added? What is so hugely wrong about this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Blof, this isn't about stuff being done "my way". While it is true that I have very high standards which are not always easy to meet, and that I prefer to take time to do something right once instead of going about it in iterations, in this case that's not about it all. Nor is this about the "workload" which I allegedly can't take. This is about the fact that you have created hundreds of articles which are factually wrong and incorrectly attributed, and instead of admitting it you are trying to counter-blame me. If someone pointed out to me that hundreds of articles I recently created have glaring mistakes, I'd be on top of it fixing things the next minute! You, instead, are trying to accuse me of being a "control freak". Take a responsibility for your mess for a change, will ya? Making two factual mistakes in a sentence that states three things and is attributed to an unrelated source is hardly a valuable contribution. As for me not being interested, that's not true at all. I may not have time to do them all myself, but I would have happily created templates like this one for you to work with, if you only had asked...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 17:47 (UTC)

Please tell me how this is much different. I don't seme to recall you leaving a message on my talk page of these huge errors apparent across 90% of the articles. So why didn't you tell me then. Why it is only now you bring it up if its that huge a problem? Because you were so pissed off you'd have blown your lid and said something you regretted or because maybe its not as huge an issue as you imply? As far as I can see all the articles need is to go through them and for data and links to be added and the occasional changing of urban type settlement to rural type settlement. You assume I would not be willing to go through them, have you actually asked for crying out loud? I could quite easily go through the oblasts already created and add in ready made templates if that's what you want but as I said I fail to see the difference between your ready made templates and my parameters which I've hidden.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing terribly wrong about Glushkovsky District, but that's one of those where skipping the references altogether was actually a wiser solution than adding a reference which does not apply. Minor problems (which are, however, not so minor once you multiply them by several hundred) include the implication that the administrative center is an urban-type settlement (which for this particular district it is, but for about half of other districts is not), using the accent mark in the interwiki template, and encouraging entering the 2009 population estimate instead of the more recent data. On top of that, the visible text adds nothing to what the administrative divisions of Kursk Oblast already says, and the parts which are commented out could have included many more useful things on which it would have been easier to expand later (and that's the difference between your template and mine).

An example of more serious problems would be something like Garinsky District, which incorrectly states that it is both an administrative and municipal district and attributes that misinformation to a source that does not even deal with the municipal aspect. I'd say 50% error rate in an article composed of a single sentence is a problem, no?

As for me not pointing this out to you sooner, until today I was under the assumption that you were not yet done with those articles. See, I have hard time imagining how an editor worth his salt would consider this kind of sloppy job "done". I know that your approach to creating articles is different from mine, so I assumed that you'll continue later, and the mess is only temporary. Well, I guess not, eh? Why, indeed—it's so much easier to blame me for not jumping right on it to fix it for you! It's sad that you aren't even willing to take responsibility for this. I will, of course, fix it all in due course, but I'm not going to alter my editing schedule just because someone though that creating hundreds of stubs on a topic they don't know much about is a great idea and an improvement.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 18:14 (UTC)

What? I've begun going through the districts adding the link, maps and some things. I most certainly have not "finished". You say "It's sad that you aren't even willing to take responsibility for this." If you had noted I had not finished, then how can you spout such utter crap?? Yes I will need your help with population being added but I am well aware it is you who apparently wears the trousers in any situation. I wouldn't dream of even attempting to order you to do something, you've made it 200% clear everything has to be done your way and according to you. Besides should you consider attempting to add population and data for a raion I would be more than happy to do further preliminary work for you and quickly update the hidden parameters so they can easily be added to. If you could highlight those raions which have the inappropriate reference I can ask to see if an AWBer can remove the reference and "municipal" at least until I or you get around to expanding them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, great, I'm glad we've at least cleared the pants business up.</sarcasm> Sarcasm aside, it's not so much about things being done my way; it's about things being done right. You see the difference, do you not? Things can be done right in many different ways, and I don't think I ever bitched about someone doing things right, but differently from the way I would have done it myself. And certainly there is a difference between someone creating a template which does the job but which I think could have been improved in many ways from the start, and someone creating a template which is just plain wrong and misleading!

Anyway, if you are not done yet, then why didn't you just say so straight up instead of sending the abundance of compliments my way in your third comment of this thread?

Back to business. On identifying the districts which need to be corrected, you realize that it will take me hours to go through all of them and create a list of those which need to be corrected? In other words, about the same amount of time it would have taken me to go through them and just correct them myself... Arghhh!

Still, a good place to start clean up would be Sverdlovsk Oblast. It has thirty administrative districts, but only five of them are also municipal districts. Another bulk change could be the removal of OKATO reference from the sentences which mention the municipal aspect. That reference can be moved to the "administrative" part, but it would be best to remove it completely, because for most federal subjects sources of better quality than OKATO exist.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 18:41 (UTC)

I began adding to the first two raions I created the other day and intend to proceed through them all adding the maps/flags and a bit of data. I was well aware of the urban type settlements vs selo and had spotted the accent which yes irritated me when I noticed that. I figured that when it comes to be edited it wouldn't take much to add selo instead. As far as I saw there were many urban type settlements so it seemed plausible to create them like that. Yes I did look through many and saw the administrative and municipal and started assuming they were all like that, You'll notice though that many were not created with a source or the "municipal" part. I was aware of all of the issues you identified before creation and I figured that changing urban-type to selo and 2009 to 2010 or 2011 might not be that much of a pain. I did forget though to add the Panoh part in the infobox.. OK its far from ideal but the way I saw it is that some framework is there now to add the basic data and maps and it gives me something to work towards. Tell me which districts are also municipal and I'll fix em. The reference BTW is intended to be for the number of districts. If saying one of the 28 districts ref for example is wrong then why does the raion and district list ref the figure in the box? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see; thanks for the explanation.

In Sverdlovsk Oblast, the districts which are both administrative and municipal are Baykalovsky, Kamyshlovsky, Nizhneserginsky, Slobodo-Turinsky, and Taborinsky. Thanks for taking care of that.

The number of administrative and municipal districts differs in some other federal subjects as well. The ref in the "administrative divisions of..." articles only references the number of administrative districts, and only per OKATO (which is not always current). Since the lists are titled "administrative divisions...", the municipal aspect is not covered at all, hence the ref is correct. Once the municipal aspect is described, those lists would look completely differently and are referenced differently, too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 18:56 (UTC)

Something aint right with Alapayevsky District. The Russian name and link seems wrong. lso Russian for Artinsky District seems to be okrug.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to synchronize these articles with the Russian Misplaced Pages? If so, that's the problem. They are going about these articles differently. We consistently treat the articles about the administrative divisions as primary (because the municipal divisions are often formed on the basis of the administrative divisions), while they usually treat the municipal divisions as primary, but they don't always do it consistently, so some of those articles in ru-wiki are a complete mess. Normally, such synchronization works anyway because a great number of administrative and municipal districts match 1:1, but this is obviously not going to be the case for Sverdlovsk Oblast (to which Artinsky District, an administrative division, is a good illustration—municipally it is incorporated as Artinsky Urban Okrug, and ru-wiki does not have an article about the district).

With Alapayevsky District, the Russian article you linked to is about the flag of Alapayevskoye Urban Okrug (which the territory of Alapayevsky Administrative District is municipally incorporated as), but the article itself is also incorrectly titled "flag of Alapayevsky District" (which assumes that something called "Alapayevsky Municipal District" actually exists—it doesn't). The bottom line: there is no corresponding article in ru-wiki to use for interwiki purposes in this case.

Another thing I would like to ask you is to please not copy the number of lower-level divisions from the "administrative divisions of..." articles. Those articles are based solely on OKATO, which is often outdated. There is little sense in proliferating that information into the actual articles, although, technically, doing so is not wrong (the information is attributed and can be verified). Each federal subject has laws on the administrative-territorial division, which are more up-to-date and accurate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 19:57 (UTC)

Well I've fixed what you wanted. The ru versions as you say don't seme to match so I won't persist with adding the Russian and inter links. I will gradually go through the other raions I started.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 20:11 (UTC)

On the weekend will go through Amur, Astrakhan and Belgorod. What is the municipal score with those Ezhiki? Can you also add a image skyline option to the district parameters?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In Amur and Astrakhan Oblasts, the counts match (twenty administrative districts incorporated as twenty municipal districts in Amur Oblast and eleven administrative districts incorporated as eleven municipal districts in Astrakhan Oblast). In Belgorod Oblast, there are twenty-one administrative and nineteen municipal districts (Gubkinsky District is municipally incorporated as Gubkinsky Urban Okrug, and Starooskolsky District is municipally incorporated as Starooskolsky Urban Okrug; the rest match 1:1).

As for the parameter, it probably shouldn't be called "skyline"—I take it it's going to contain a typical view of the district, whatever that might be? I'll do it tomorrow, as I'm about to take off for today, but do you think it's really necessary? Districts are pretty large and seldom can be summarized by just one picture.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 18, 2011; 21:01 (UTC)

Montage images are usually appropriate for districts and provinces I find. Tomorrow I'll add the maps and flags to the Moscow articles and add infoboxes, maps and flags to those which are without them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good point about the montages, although I can hardly think of an appropriate montage for the majority of the Russian districts. Most of them are basically a large decrepit village (or an urban-type settlement, or a town) surrounded by smaller decrepit villages with empty spaces in between :) Still, it's a possibility. I've added the image_view and image_caption parameters to the infobox.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 13:38 (UTC)

Onega, Russia

In the infobox, the municipal distict appears as unreferenced, though you have put in the reference there. I assume this is a general problem with the template (I tried Velsk, and it leads to the same problem). Could you please have a look at the template and possibly fix it. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The template is actually fine, but I misspelled the parameter name in the infobox (and it looks that you copy-pasted it to Velsk). I've fixed it; sorry for not noticing it right away!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 11:59 (UTC)

Apologies

Apology accepted. I knew why I didn't hear anything from you and figured it was because you could have said something you regretted and even lost your admin tools in the heat of the moment. That's why I let it cool down a little bit before I contacted you. I knew you'd be upset, but I sort of got impatient as I like to start things first and then build it piece by piece. Yes there is a huge amount of work to do but I don't think the task is that huge if we do it gradually. It would have to all be done anyway. The time I spent creating the remainder really is inconsequential, and can easily be overidden with more details and stuff. Yes if you give me a template I can go back over them as long as it is a stage at a time and in manageable chunks, so long as you will in the population data afterwards. Sorry to add to the workload but I consider districts as very important and I really feel we should have had these before many of the articles we have on small urban type settlements and selos.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Admin tools were the last thing on my mind when I saw the stubs... But you know, it's a humbling experience when you wake in the morning, re-read the latest threads on your own talk page, and think to yourself—"what kind of fuckhead would write something like this?"—and then realize that oh wait, that was me :)

Anyhoo, I hope we are good. You can use Alexandrovsky District as a template for the rest of the districts of Stavropol Krai, and I'll try to make one template a day for the rest of the federal subjects as well, starting next week. Does that sound like a plan?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 16:44 (UTC)

Can you do me a favour though, can you use your word program to save me time and bullet/wiki link all of the entries in User:Aymatth2/Articles. Once that is done I will resume with the Russian districts!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 16:44 (UTC)

Hehe, well Ezhiki I am always honest. I only really insult the people I really dislike and you are far from being classed in that category. Yes, if I'm honest I think you like to be in control and on top of any situation and don't like having your sense of order disturbed but I know many people like that and they are highly organized and quite impressive people. We both know what each other are capable of and you know the purpose of the articles is not for them to remain useless as they are currently. There is a plan... I know the stubs seem lousy right now but its more a psychological thing for me to think OK, stage 1 the articles are blue linked. For me it seems like there is less to do when the articles are already blue linked. While this is probably not true for me it gives us something to play with. The thing is Ezhiki I think of[REDACTED] like a world map conquest and an area missing at least the size of Europe seemed wrong.. . Anyway I will make a start with the aptly named Stavropol. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought you'd appreciate the starting point :))—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 16:56 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your quick efforts to format User:Aymatth2/Articles. Thankyou!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)