User talk:Ezhiki

---

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

---

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 ^Talk 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)

OK, I've moved pages around and submitted an amendment request for the PP process, but I'm sure I've missed stuff. Please give the whole structure another look and let me know if you see anything that should be fixed (and you can't fix it yourself). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 19:28 (UTC)

OK, I'll check it later, thx! GreyHood ^Talk 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the job. I've made few fixes and assessments, and now almost everything seems alright to me. But have you submitted a request for Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Politics and law of Russia task force/Popular pages instead of Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Politics of Russia task force/Popular pages? (btw, the military task force PP list needs enlargement from 500 to 1500 items)

Also, I've just remembered we planned to insert bot-supported article statistics tables into each task force. GreyHood ^Talk 07:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not submit a new request, but I did file a request for configuration change (asking to change the target pages). I no longer see it in the list of requested changes, so hopefully it has been processed and will take effect with the next run. I also remember requesting the change from 500 to 1500 for the military task force at the same time when I was submitting the requests for the rest of the taskforces; I'm not sure why that hadn't been processed. Anyway, the PP tool page now displays a notice saying they stopped taking new requests till November, so I guess that'll have to wait.

On the bot-supported article stats table, could you please remind me what that was about? I vaguely remember discussing it, but don't recall the details, sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

I mean making tables similar to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Russia articles by quality statistics for each specific task force. GreyHood ^Talk 17:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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

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

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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 ^Talk 13:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

My apologies—I fully intended to submit it for PR on Monday, but it completely slipped my mind after the weekend! Anyway, better late than never. Good luck.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 18:33 (UTC)

Good time, Ezhiki. I am now having too many problems. For the two last weeks I had problems with my Internet connection because personnel of technical support service of my Internet provider sold me and installed a new modem that did not work. After this incident, problems with software installed on my computer have recently cast a shadow over my relations with a Russian very large software producer. Despite all this, I will try to respond to criticisms on the peer review page. Thanks. Psychiatrick (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, best of luck to you in dealing with the Russian providers :) As for the nom, I'll keep half an eye on it, but it probably will take a while for someone to actually notice and review it, because of the extensive PR backlog. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 20:01 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel myself like a twig in the ocean, not a master of my ship. From this perspective, it seems a little foolish to aim at or struggle for promotion of my articles to higher status at any cost. But I will respond to reviewers from time to time. Psychiatrick (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are you? Please compare:

Phrase in the source is as follows: “Злоупотреблением психиатрией, в том числе и в политических целях, является умышленная экскульпация граждан, по своему психическому состоянию не нуждающихся ни в психиатрическом стеснении, ни в психиатрическом лечении”.

The same phrase before being copyedited in the article is as follows: “In other words, abuse of psychiatry including one for political purposes is deliberate action of getting citizens certified, who, because of their mental condition, need neither psychiatric restraint nor psychiatric treatment.”

The same phrase copyedited by FiachraByrne in the article is as follows: “It entails the certification and committal of citizens to psychiatric facilities based upon a political rather than a mental health rationale.”

When copyedited, the phrase looks as if it has been taken from different source. People have the right to ask me what source this phrase was taken from? I do not know. That is a fundamental problem of Wikipedia and means it needs professional translators for editing and reviewing the articles based on sources using another language. I faced similar problems not too many months ago when I wrote an article based on sources using another language, and these problems are still discussed in ru-wiki [1]. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ezhiki. Peer review for the article was completed. If you don’t mind, let’s proceed to the next stage related to the nomination. The most difficult thing for me is to put the article on the necessary page. Psychiatrick (talk) 18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. Good luck!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 29, 2011; 21:33 (UTC)

Thanks. How much time do I have to address the issues on the nomination page? In ru-wiki, any author is usually given several months to reply to questions and remarks during such a process. When the article was nominated for the Good Articles, one of the requests was to make subsections in the article and resulted in that its table of contents became long. Now, on the contrary, one of the requests is that the table of contents needs to be shortened because it is too long. These opposite requests add to the excess vain work on the article. If one takes into account the above, every reviewer in Wikipedia appears to have his or her own standard for reviewing articles. That is not good for them and their authors at all. Psychiatrick (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, they sure fail FA noms quickly these days! I logged out yesterday, logged in this morning, and it has already been killed off without even giving time to respond. Whatever happened to common courtesy, I don't know.

Anyhoo, to answer your questions. I don't believe there is a specific time frame during which the nom should be processed, but it is normal for noms to be denied if no visible progress to address the concerns is being made. On the other hand, if the author/nominator are visibly at work addressing those concerns, the nom can stay open for quite a while (even now there are a few noms open since mid-August).

I've never nominated an FA myself, but I do have one FL (featured list) under my belt, and as far as opposing demands go, the situation there was sort of similar. The best one can do is to point out that various people want to exercise mutually exclusive approaches to formatting and then to go with whichever side has more support in the end. Certainly don't start changing things right away when opposite demands start pouring in!

As to what to do now, I would recommend addressing the concerns from tonight before re-nominating. We could make a point that closing a nomination so quickly is just not a nice thing to do, but some of the things pointed out even in such short a time do need to be corrected, so it makes sense to address them before re-nominating. I wish they were pointed out during the PR, but oh well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 30, 2011; 16:08 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 15:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

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 ^Talk 16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one looks a bit too nerdy for my taste :) But thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 13:36 (UTC)

You could imagine Harry Potter's glasses on it I guess.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 22:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ^Talk 16:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 14:09 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 14:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy there. Bad move. "Moscow Ring Road" should've been a disambig. NVO (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the other one?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 14:19 (UTC)

There are several Rings of Moscow, yes. But the only one is generally known as the "Moscow Ring Road". GreyHood ^Talk 14:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I don't believe the rest are generally known as "Moscow Ring Road" in English, an even if they are, only this one qualifies as primary. Perhaps tweaking the hatnote is all that needs to be done?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 14:35 (UTC)

Unfortunately we haven't the article Rings of Moscow in English still. GreyHood ^Talk 14:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 13:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 14:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 14:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 15:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 [i]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 [n]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 [i]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 ^Talk 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 [i]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 ([use] German [conventions] 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 Wikipedia guidelines. Well, I see your logic and respect your opinion, but it seems I should file a move request. GreyHood ^Talk 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm still here for a few minutes). General English capitalization practices are not above the Wikipedia 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 [Russian] 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 ^Talk 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Hi Ezhiki, greetings again - hope you're having a good summer. At Russian Air Force there is a mention of an airfield at Dmitriyevka ([Чебеньки]) 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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 ^Talk 21:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello again! Please look here. Wikipedia rules sometimes lead to quite unproductive results. GreyHood ^Talk 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 16:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Well, if it were Russian Wikipedia, you'd have a point :) In English Wikipedia, 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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are you trying to synchronize these articles with the Russian Wikipedia? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

Yes I do, and it takes a real ballsy guy to admit that, which makes me respect you more Ezhiki.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be some sort of navigation plate linking the Stavropol districts and the main settlements? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I forgot all about that; thanks for reminding. When I was working with Starzynka, he would always re-do the "cities and towns" template into one that lists also the districts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 17:13 (UTC)

Ah I see, link the districts and major settlements in one template. It wouldn't be correct though to list districts under a template named cities and towns though.. Can we move it to just Stavrpol Krai? I see you have said twenty six, you do know though that is against the MOS guidlines to write numbers in words above 10?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the template and added the districts to it—that's how we always did it in the past. Should be good now. As for spelling out the numbers, no, I wasn't aware there's a MOS guideline to that effect (can you point me to it, please?). I occasionally copy-edit handouts in my company, and our style guide says to spell out all numbers below 100, which is how I ended up assuming it's what everyone (including Wikipedia) does. Apparently not. I'll make sure to remember this in the future. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 17:26 (UTC)

Thanks. Read WP:ORDINAL. Have started going through Stavropol now.17:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. But ORDINAL says that ...in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words... (emphasis mine). Seems to me that either approach is fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 17:34 (UTC)

Stavropol is ready for your input.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll make sure to go through them and make cosmetic changes where necessary (and create the missing ref templates). By the way, I've just looked at the History section of Alexandrovsky District, and unlike the Economy section, it didn't translate well at all. Too much specialized terminology google translate knows nothing about. Do you mind skipping those sections for now? Ru-wiki is notorious for not referencing them anyway, and usually they are taken from the official websites, where the quality of such information is abysmal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 18:34 (UTC)

Remove whatever is incorrect. Would be nice to have a full articles on every district of course. I may see if I can find some sources for some of the others...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it'd be nice. Writing history sections like this one is the main reason why I stick around, by the way. Problem is, not only it takes time to produce a more or less acceptable result, it also takes time to figure out what's usable and what's not. Ru-wiki articles are mostly unusable as sources, except when they are well-referenced (which is to say, hardly ever).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 18:50 (UTC)

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

Thanks, but that was nothing. If you ever need a refresher course on how to do this quickly yourself, I'll be happy to oblige.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 16:59 (UTC)

I know about the ^p and control H and such but I tried it and it didn't work for this particular list for some reason! Anyway much appreciated!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! There are still few Russian administrative division history pages deleted for some reason: Derbent Governorate, Irkutsk Governorate, Kaluga Governorate, Kostroma Governorate, Mount Shamkhal, Saratov Governorate, Saratov Viceroyalty, Suvorov, Russia, Yaroslavl Governorate. GreyHood ^Talk 18:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what the reason is... G5. I'll take a look. Thanks for finding them!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 19, 2011; 18:26 (UTC)

Доброго времени суток! Не очень понятно, зачем была удалена информация об автобусных маршрутах, связывающих один из районов Москвы (Братеево) с ближайшими статьями метро? В статье ведь говорится: "There are no metro stations in Brateyevo District. The nearest stations are: ..." ("В Братеево нет станций метро. Ближайшие станции: ...") Я добавил информацию, чтобы люди знали, как добраться до метро, если в районе их пока нет. Именно в этом контексте эта информация очень даже уместна. Источник по этой информации есть. Тем более что в аналогичной статье Русской Википедии она спокойно себе поживает.

За остальную помощь при работе со статьёй — большое спасибо! Английский у меня на средненьком уровне, поэтому переодически бывают ошибки.

Можете ответить как на русском, так и на английском. (понимаю я лучше, чем говорю, но лучше на русском!) --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Добрый день, коллега! Мне, к сожалению, неизвестны правила, которыми руководствуется русская Википедия, но в нашем лесу партия нам спустила предельно ясные указания: Википедия — это не путеводитель :) Это не означает, конечно, что о транспорте писать вообще ничего не надо. Очень даже наооборот — надо, но только энциклопедическую информацию. Список автобусных маршрутов же это типичный материал для путеводителей, тем более что по вашим же словам вы добавили её для туристов, а не пользователей энциклопедии. В принципе, даже и информация про метро, наверное, попадает в разряд путеводительства, но это всё-таки более серая область, да и ссылки на статьи там есть, поэтому эту часть я оставил. Вот такие пироги.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 13:38 (UTC)

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

Stubs Seym River Zlynka Moskovsky City District, Tver Sokolniki, Tula Oblast Dmitry of Tver Tvertsa River Savyolovo Iput River Tsna River (Moksha basin) Maria of Tver Yuzhnoye Butovo District Unecha Mezha River (Western Dvina) Tsna River (Mstino Lake basin) Varshavskoye Shosse Khovrino District Tulun Kashinka River Orekhovo-Borisovo Severnoye District

Cleanup Nikolay Slavyanov Podolsk Vehicle registration plates of Russia Merge Reval Governorate Prospekt (street) Antisocial personality disorder Add Sources Strogino District Stolobny Island Klin Wikify Perm Governorate European Commission against Racism and Intolerance HC Spartak Moscow Expand Gothic Revival architecture Volgograd Oblast Tuscany

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 Wikipedia 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) 13:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you now please have a look at Tarnogsky District — do you find it ok to proceed like this with the municipal division (especially ref), or do we need a separate template for each district? I follow your talk page, so that it is perfectly fine to reply here, without notifying me on my talk page. Thanks in advance, there is no hurry, I still need a couple of days to finish the essential articles pertaining to Arkhangelsk Oblast.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine, although I haven't looked too closely. I'll make sure to check those after I'm done with Stavropol Krai and will definitely let you know if I see anything amiss. Thanks much for your work; you have no idea how appreciated it is! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 15:08 (UTC)

I'm planning to turn the Tarnogsky District article into a template next week. Also, I wanted to let you know not to worry about creating the administrative/municipal divisions sections. They must be taking you a lot of time to compile (and I wouldn't think you see it as a fun task, unless you share the same perverted idea of "fun" with yours truly :)), and I actually have a database which can produce those sections in just a couple clicks. The database is still missing the data for Arkhangelsk and Sverdlovsk Oblasts (and since you concentrated your effort mostly on the former, I didn't let you know this earlier), but for the rest of the federal subjects these sections can be populated in a matter of days. Also, the database is based on the actual administrative-territorial and municipal laws, not on OKATO. I'm planning to deploy it after creating the necessary disambigs for selsoviets/rural settlements (same way I did with the districts; cf. Leninsky District, Russia), and having all the links point to proper locations will be an important benefit. Sure beats doing it all manually! :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 26, 2011; 15:25 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Indeed, I will be doing Vologda Oblast next, I will then skip the Divisions sections in the district articles. I expect to finish the articles on Arkhangelsk oblast today or tomorrow (still need to finish Arkhangelsk, Arkhangelsk Governorate, Arkhangelsk Oblast, create one article and upload one image), but there is so much work to do on Vologda Oblast that there is no hurry anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've tweaked Tarnogsky District so it can now be used as a template for the rest of the Vologda Oblast district articles. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 16:02 (UTC)

Thanks/ Sure, I have questions. 1) Do these Law #371-OZ and Resolution #178 remain the same for all districts? Apparently, in Vologda Oblast they have separate laws for every district. 2) Did you removed the selsoviet list on purpose, in order to add them to all districts with your program? 3) Is the redirect Tarnogsky such a good idea given that the article on Tarnogsky Gorodok will be created within days (may be even tomorrow)?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, these two are oblast-level and list all the districts. The municipal laws such as #1123-OZ, on the other hand, will be different for each district—feel free to comment those parts out and I will create the necessary templates and uncomment them as I go through them later. 2) Yes. 3) "Tarnogsky" should not redirect to "Tarnogsky Gorodok", nor should we have a disambig at "Tarnogsky" listing "Tarnogsky Gorodok". We do not normally create redirects/disambigs for partial names (I should be able to dig up the appropriate guideline, if you want me to). With the district, since the "district" part is not a part of the name but merely an entity type specifier, the redirect is valid. The only other valid candidates for a possible disambig would be Tarnogsky Selsoviet and Tarnogskoye Rural Settlement, but those are unlikely to be created soon and at any rate they will be redlinked from the district article first. I'll be taking care of such cases once the database is ready to be deployed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 18:30 (UTC)

OK, good, thx.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not leave empty text lying about. Once you've done Stavropol I'll happily continue with Zabaykalsky Krai.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but just so you know, I wasn't planning on polishing more than three a day (because this task kind of cut ahead of pretty much everything else on my to-do list, and it's more labor-intensive than it seems on surface). I'm obviously not going to tell you how to structure your workflow, but if you change your mind, please let me know and I'll gladly continue creating the templates for you (without stopping my trudging forward with Stavropol Krai et al., of course). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 17:55 (UTC)

As long as they won't be left empty for months... I'll do Zabay tomorrow evening most likely. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at three a day you can calculate exactly how long they'll stay empty and pace yourself accordingly :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 22, 2011; 18:00 (UTC)

Zabaykalsky Krai is done, although I missed those which had articles and data. They need infoboxes still. I will resume with the next when Stavropl is done and you have started on Zabay.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'K, thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 24, 2011; 12:03 (UTC)

Our citation policy does not require citations at the end of every sentence, but it does require citations for all information. You will observe that featured articles do not have citations at the end of every sentence, but that all information is sourced; check Ambondro mahabo, a random one, for an example — everything in the body of the article is cited, often with citations at the ends of paragraphs. The lead has no citations, but per WP:LEAD, they're not required for information that's sourced elsewhere: everything, like in my preferred version of the Antwerp article but unlike in your preferred version, is based upon reliable sources. Nyttend (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our citation policy requires citations for anything that is challenged or is likely to be challenged. Since I am unable to verify the source you used, please consider my citation requests as such challenge and source them accordingly. I obviously cannot attribute the sentences which I perceive as unsourced to the source you used, because I don't have access to it, so that job falls onto you.

Also, you have not addressed your removal of the information I added. Do you have good reasons to believe it is factually wrong? If not, I suggest you leave it there to be referenced later (perhaps not even by me!). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 23, 2011; 16:08 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed that you assessed the article Arctic policy of Russia that I created about a month ago. Would you be able to reassess it? I think that it has since improved beyond start-class. Although I'm still working on it, I think that it's more or less come together.--Slon02 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-assessed it as C. By the way, whenever you are improving an article, you are welcome to tweak its assessment yourself as well. The basic criteria are easy to check, and anyone can change those ratings (the only thing to remember is that WP:RUSSIA does not use A-Class). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:24 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to close a guideline proposal. I hope that once things are made easier for the admins, someone will close the guideline proposal. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've re-organized the thread to be closed as suggested.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 29, 2011; 13:41 (UTC)

Can you check the translation of the theatre roles from Russian wikipedia?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seem fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2011; 15:21 (UTC)

Thanks, and the filmography?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography should use English titles for those movies which have been released in the English-speaking countries and romanized Russian titles for those which haven't been. Since I have no idea about these particular movies, and since most of those don't have articles, I'm afraid I can't help much. The translations seem more or less accurate, but if you have doubts about specific entries, I can look at those individually.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2011; 15:44 (UTC)

Women's Work is at Risk for Life-Investigator Hope Postnikov. Is Hope Postnikov part of the name of the film or her character?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got that fixed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2011; 16:30 (UTC)

Returned from a Trip with my Husband , I think One, Two.., Do Not I and Mother Rent also look odd?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The husband one is a popular intro line from the Russian jokes; I've fixed it but perhaps there is a better (or more traditional) translation I am not aware of. As for the rest, I've fixed 'em. But, once again, this is just my translation, and the movies might have been released under completely different titles in English (or should simply be transliterated if they had never been released in English). Perhaps it would be best to limit the filmography only to the entries on which we already have articles?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2011; 18:51 (UTC)

hi i wanted to start an article about the recently formed Западный военный округ. In some sources they translate it to "Western Operational Strategic Command" and in others "Western Military District". so which is the best name to call the article? best regrads, Superzohar Talk 11:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the articles on all other similar entities are titled using "military district", "Western Military District" is the best choice for this one, too.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 1, 2011; 11:59 (UTC)

Superzohar, thanks for your initiative in this area: we need the new MDs. While they were initially referred to in the discussion stage as OSCs (OCKs), the presidential decree (which you can find if you look) specifically refers to them as the Western Military District, Central Military District, Southern Military District, and Eastern Military District. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ezhiki. There are a couple of images on the Russian wikipedia that I would like to add to wp:en articles, but they're on ru:wiki, not Commons. Would it be possible for you to move them? They're at http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Эмблема 22 ТБАД.jpg and http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Здание штаба ТуркВО.jpg . They're at the 22nd Heavy Bomber Aviation Division and the Turkestan Military District pages. Cheers and thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Russavia (talk · contribs) to take a look at your request. He's an admin on the Commons, and since he deals with this kind of tasks all the time, I'm more confident in his ability to take care of this properly. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 14:18 (UTC)

Thanks Ezhiki - just asked you because my Russian is not up to the job of reading all the instructions.. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These pics are deletion firewood on commons. Upload to :en directly (perhaps under fair use terms). NVO (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the emblem, perhaps, but what's wrong with the picture of the building?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 14:50 (UTC)

In reality, probably nothing wrong. But certain rather active editors on Wiki Commons operate under the premise that since a photograph of the building is a derivative work of the building itself, and the design of the building is the creative work of the architect... then a photo of the building cannot be "free" either, not until 70 years since the death of the architect(s) or some such. It is more complicated than that of course - much depends on the jurisdiction where the structure is located, and the artistic vs. utilitarian function thereof. You can look up the Freedom of Panorama rules on Commons for your amusement. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I remember that nice little page now; thanks for the reminder. In fact, it happens to be one of the reasons why I don't frequent the Commons if I can help it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 18:05 (UTC)

I have uploaded both images to Commons, and they are available under their original Russian language names. The emblem is clearly PD-RU-exempt. The photo of the building is in my opinion able to be released into PD as the building is clearly utilitarian in nature - it is clearly a Brezhnev era office building, and the design is a dime a dozen; there's nothing artistic in its design that would be copyrightable. Feel free to contact me on my Commons talk page in case of any problems with these images. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC) P.S. anyone can do the transfer by way of using this tool. Simply substitute the language code for the language code of the WP the image is on, in this instance, the code gets changed to ru. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i updated the russian military districts but also ruined it. can u fix it pls? thx Superzohar Talk 19:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Military Districts of the Russian Federation

You forgot to close the html comment tag at the end. I've fixed it. The template is not yet complete, right?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 2, 2011; 20:07 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki. Because you participated at Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Convenience header (permanent link), you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian#Closing straw poll. Administrator SilkTork (talk · contribs) has reviewed the discussion and has opened a straw poll seeking clarification about several issues before he closes the discussion. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that for some reason there are too much of "[citation needed]" in the infoboxes of some Russian cities, such as Oryol. GreyHood ^Talk 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's because hardly anything in that infobox is referenced :)

Welcome back, by the way. Did you enjoy your summer?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 7, 2011; 17:12 (UTC)

%), but it is seen that hardly anything is referenced even without those tags :) and they make the infobox too much tag-inflated. I don't insist on changing anything, actually. Just want to say it doesn't look nice and perhaps doesn't help much.

As for the summer, I've finally enjoyed it in full scale :) Not only the sun but the sea as well. The most active phase of my vacation started a bit too quick and unexpectedly, so I hadn't placed the vacation tag on my talk page, sorry. Now I hope I'll be mildly active on-wiki at least until the end of September. GreyHood ^Talk 18:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually designed not to look nice on purpose. The easiest way to make it look nice is by adding the references, which is the whole point (and I've seen people adding references to those infobox just to get rid of the tags, although, regrettably, not as often as I thought they would). See, for example, Novosibirsk, where the infobox contains no "citation needed" tags whatsoever.

As for the summer, I'm glad you enjoyed yours. Mine sucked, but I am really looking forward to my vacation in October. Will hopefully enjoy the sea and the sun, too, unless a hurricane sweeps Mexico away in the meanwhile :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 7, 2011; 18:30 (UTC)

Just so you know: other editors also don't like overtagging the infoboxes.

Hope nothing will happen with Mexico. I had a plan to go to Norway in October, but the summer events there made me change my intention. GreyHood ^Talk 07:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I do know :) It is really strange to me, though, that people are so unhappy about (properly used!) citation tags, yet they hardly ever complain about the rest of the article being unsourced. Take Yaroslavl, for example. Most of the sections there have no references whatsoever, yet it's the infobox that takes flak! If one were to scatter a bunch of "citation needed" tags across the rest of the article (which is anyone's full right to do), would it not look "unappealing and unprofessional", too? I just don't see how not marking uncited factoids as such suddenly makes the outcome any more professional. The way I see it, if the article has no sources, either add the sources (or ask someone to add them), remove the unsourced information, or live with the tags. Simply bitching about the tags not looking pretty does not help anything (and as far as I remember, the tag itself was made to look so ugly on purpose; to make people want to get rid of it... by adding sources, of course).

Thanks to Yaroslav for taking care of this, by the way. I was about to start working on this article this morning, and seeing that he has already added the sources was a pleasant surprise.

With Norway, you kind of sound like my in-laws :) Whenever my wife and me go on vacation anywhere, they will always dig up something scary about the destination and try to talk us out of going :) Or do you mean it is now harder for Russians to get into Norway because of those events?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2011; 14:05 (UTC)

Well, you are right again, of course, but I'd still prefer to have even the unfinished and unreferenced articles looking nice. Afterall, tags are for editors and not for the readers, and as a reader I usually see tags in wiki articles only in relation to some dubious and controversial information (and in this case tags are actually a useful hint to readers).

As for Norway, I was going to go there with my parents, and, no wonder, my mother is rather sensitive about such events. Also, Norwegians reinstated the border control with Shengen zone right around the time we were making a decision in mid summer.

It is a bit problematic these days where to go in Europe and around. In Egypt there is revolution, in Turkey there are multiple tourist poisonings, in PIGS countries there is economic crisis, demonstrations and unrest (as well as in Britain). GreyHood ^Talk 15:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but the tags are for readers, too! What they do is emphasize that a particular piece does not have any sources, is thus unverifiable, and should be taken with a grain of salt. And nowhere it is more important than in the infoboxes. They are, after all, the only thing on a page many readers even look at. And since the infoboxes mostly contain hard facts and numbers—i.e., the pieces that are easiest to abuse and which thus need references and verifiability the most—they would naturally have more tags than the article's text would. At any rate, the infoboxes are supposed to summarize what the article already says, and when this practice is followed, one could simply re-use the refs from the text. Unfortunately, people tend to add huge (and, naturally, unreferenced) infoboxes even to stubs (and, worse yet, to series of stubs), and if a slew of "citation needed" tags helps discourage that even a little, it's only for the better :)

On traveling, I see your point. My wife and me simply decided a while ago to ignore such events altogether; it makes life so much easier and more pleasant. We are not, of course, as stupid as to go on vacation to Egypt in the midst of a revolution, but an unrest in London wouldn't have prevented us from going on vacation to, say, Scotland, had one been already scheduled :) Parents, of course, are always something else. My mother, for example, was a little scared to go to Cyprus because that island is still divided, even though there hasn't been actual serious trouble there for years :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2011; 15:45 (UTC)

Well, if we would tag all unreferenced information in wiki articles I believe too many of them would become tag-inflated and unreadable. Not every kind of unreferenced information should be taken with a similar grain of salt.

Cyprus, btw, also wasn't a good variant in this summer. The only major power station on the island was heavily damaged during the fire caused by an explosion on a nearby military base, and the whole island suffered shortages of electricity. Being small country is not always convenient. GreyHood ^Talk 17:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take me wrong, I'm not proposing to tag all unreferenced information in Wikipedia :) Assuming that most of unreferenced information in Wikipedia had been added in good faith, it is probably mostly correct, and a lot of it can still be verified pretty easily. Infoboxes are different from the rest of the article, though, because the information they contain is so condensed. It's easier to vandalize a single value in an infobox (and to get away with it) than it is to change the meaning of a sentence; it's more sensitive to typos; and it's harder to verify (unless you know where to look). Thus, any unsourced value in the infobox is by definition suspect and dubious, and should be taken with a grain (or even a can) of salt. To illustrate, an editor recently took the values of areas of the districts of Stavropol Krai from the Russian Wikipedia (which is notorious for not referencing much of anything) and used them in en_wiki. I happen to have a source to check those areas, and roughly half (!) of them were wrong—sometimes by a little, sometimes by quite a bit. And this is far from being an exception. Still think they shouldn't have been automatically tagged as unreferenced? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 8, 2011; 17:46 (UTC)

Do coordinates and population exist for this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the coordinates; I don't think I have population figures for this, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 7, 2011; 20:05 (UTC)

A misspelled redirect (created by some физик/технарь ;)). Could you fix it please? GreyHood ^Talk 07:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what's there to fix? A redirect from the properly spelled variant already exists. I could delete this one, sure, but that's just a redirect, so its being misspelled is not a big deal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 12:49 (UTC)

Indeed this is a little matter, but I thought that obviously misspelled redirects are better be deleted. GreyHood ^Talk 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually they aren't, unless they are completely implausible. The reasoning, if I remember correctly, is that if one person made a typo, another one could do it too. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 15:34 (UTC)

Hm, I'd agree to such reasoning when there is just one or two words, but not when there is entire complex phrase and a misspelled unit is right in the end of it. Also, while there is another redirect, List of cities in Russia, the misspelled variant is always suggested first in search. GreyHood ^Talk 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that could be a problem, but I can't replicate it. What are you searching by?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 15:45 (UTC)

Search form in the top right corner of the page. GreyHood ^Talk 16:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left-side column in my case :) But yeah, that's what I tried. When searching for "list of cities in Russia" (regardless of capitalization), the misspelled redirect is not even on the first page of results. Were you searching for some other term?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 16:32 (UTC)

It's in the drop-down list of variants when you typing in the search form. GreyHood ^Talk 18:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's weird. The variants in the drop-down box are supposed to be sorted by the number of incoming links, and the properly spelled variant has many more (so it should show up first). Perhaps that's a technical glitch. I'd say let's wait a few days and check again?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 18:24 (UTC)

Hello again! I wonder, is it technically possible to create these two categories for WP:RUSSIA:

• Category:WikiProject Russia articles without Russian interwikies
• Category:Russia articles not assessed by WikiProject Russia. This category would create all articles from subcategories of Category:Russia not assessed by WP:RUSSIA. GreyHood ^Talk 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you noticed my last reply in the first section of your talk page? GreyHood ^Talk 18:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know, but let me sit on it and think. With interwikies, I'd think that unless there is a toolserver tool that can detect the interwikies (and generate a results set which could then be fed to a bot), it is impossible to do with just the templates, but I'm not 100% positive. With the other cat, I'm pretty sure there is already a tool that allows cross-connecting various cats (and I'll try finding it), but the results probably need to be processed by a bot as well. But like I said, let me mull it over for a bit; perhaps I'm forgetting something.

As for your response at the top, yes, I've seen it, but have not yet had a chance to respond. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2011; 18:30 (UTC)

Привет! Я посмотрел Вашу страницу и решил написать по-русски. Спасибо за исправления в англ��язычной статье о Смоленске! Я первый раз записал аудиофайл и разместил его в Викимедии Коммонз. Но почему-то у меня не получилось правильно добавить его в статью (о Смоленске). Хотя я делал по образцу статьи о Москве. Если не трудно, подскажите, пожалуйста, как правильно добавлять аудиофайлы в статьи Википедии, если сами аудиофайлы находятся в Викимедии Коммонз. Denghu (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Для добавления аудиофайлов на русском у нас есть два шаблона. Основной — это {{lang-rus}}, но в нём ссылка на аудиофайл не показывается, если нет также IPA-транскрипции. Это вообще баг, который надо починить. Пока же он не починен, можно пользоваться {{audio-ru}}, что я и сделал в статье о Смоленске. Первым параметром в нём идёт название на русском; вторым параметром — название аудиофайла (без "file:"). Если файл есть на Commons, то шаблон его найдёт. Если что-то осталось непонятным, пишите.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2011; 19:55 (UTC)

Rather silly hoax. GreyHood ^Talk 10:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. By the way, you could also tag such articles for deletion, so there's a chance someone else gets to them before I wake up :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 15, 2011; 11:46 (UTC)

The author got already two notices for posting hoaxes (and this is all of his contribution), may be he needs to be warned in a more serious way.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the doing the next district and saw fiddly little references in which I'd need to change the name of the district every time so I decided not to.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could simply comment those refs out as you go and I'll do the necessary tweaks (and uncomment them) as I go through them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 14:11 (UTC)

Hokay.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! By the by, do you have a problem with the yellow message bar appearing today? For whatever reason your messages aren't triggering it for me.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 15:01 (UTC)

Not that but a problem with saving, keeps coming up with a bug notice. I will do those districts in about two hours.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'm about halfway through Zabaykalsky Krai, if you are interested. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 15:22 (UTC)

I was just going to ask you to let me know on my talk page when the "genie" is back out of the "bottle" and I'd try helping to finish the cleanup! We hope (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the least I could do!

I've restored the ref, so the cat should re-populate soon. Unfortunately, it seems there is a lag today, so it's not as quick as I hoped it would. For now, I'm going through the subcats in Category:Districts of Russia by federal subject and fixing the entries from O to Z. The ref error shows up in the affected articles, even though the cat isn't yet populated. If you want to help again, I sure am not going to refuse :) This is one hell of a boring job! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 14:55 (UTC)

Looks like we're D-O-N-E!! :-)We hope (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yippee!!! :) Thanks again for all your help!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 16:40 (UTC)

• Category:Politics of Russia task force articles and it's subcategories should be deleted.
• It looks like that the articles with task force parameter "law" continue to be featured in the Category:WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force.
• Could you please return categories, templates and other stuff to the Category:WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force? I'm going to assess them anyway, and in fact assessing categories and templates is the easiest part of the job. Thanks and cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 16:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted that cat and its subcats—I was originally waiting for them to depopulate, but it was taking forever and I forgot to check back. Thanks for the reminder.

I also added the law param to the taskforce detection portion of the banner's code. It may take a while to take effect—replication is kinda slow today.

As for the cats/templates/etc., I can return them no problem, but I thought you'd want to go through the important stuff first? Besides, frankly, I don't see a point of assigning them to taskforces, although I'm happy to leave the final call up to you since it's you who's going to go through them anyway :)

Also, have you seen Colchicum's question at WT:RUSSIA yet? While I don't agree with his view overall, he does have a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 17:14 (UTC)

Well, you see, if we could remove all cats/templates/etc. from the category and return to them later, it would be nice. But most of cats/templates/etc remain in the category anyway, and removing just some 1000-1500 of them doesn't change the picture much. So please return them. And I've responded to Colchicum. I have a habit of assessment of new articles found by the bot for WP:RUSSIA and there are many moths for some reason. Seems it makes sense to assess only those endemic to Russia, not all of them. GreyHood ^Talk 17:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Once again, this may take a while to take effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 17:36 (UTC)

Thanks! GreyHood ^Talk 17:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, there is a problem with a small number of general project categories like Category talk:Automatically assessed Russia articles etc. I wonder, if we add "project=yes" parameter to them and prohibit them from the Category:WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force, will it work? GreyHood ^Talk 17:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "notaskforce" parameter ("project" is too ambiguous and confusing). A page which would normally show up in the "no associated taskforce" maintenance cat will be excluded from there if you add "notaskforce=yes".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 18:02 (UTC)

OK, I'll try this! So far, however, some already assessed articles appeared in the category. Strange. GreyHood ^Talk 18:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be lag-related, but please give me an example or two in case it's a bug. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 18:06 (UTC)

It was a lag indeed. Now everything is OK. Thanks again! GreyHood ^Talk 18:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 18:37 (UTC)

Btw, the Category:Politics of Russia task force articles is still there. GreyHood ^Talk 11:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 19, 2011; 13:44 (UTC)

Hello. Information about ethnic composition of all districts of Perm Krai (according 2002 Census) is available in Encyclopedia of Perm Krai. So, I'll add this source to articles. Brainwashinguser (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2011; 17:17 (UTC)

I have ensured that the information provided are correct which have gathered from the trusted source. Neither, violating the rules of Wikipedia . However, some of my contents were deleted? Please help me. wr i went wrong. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandanir (talk • contribs) 04:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I reverted your edit because its edit summary provided no explanation why some of the information was removed from the article; plus it was generating a huge red error message because the references weren't entered correctly. As long as those two items are addressed, I have no problem. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 19, 2011; 13:47 (UTC)

Delete Polyus Nedostupnosti please, the contents have been merged to another article on the same subject. GreyHood ^Talk 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be deleted per licensing requirements. A redirect should always be created after the merge is complete. I've completed the procedure. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 19, 2011; 13:43 (UTC)

Oh, of course, anyway we need that redirect, silly me.. Thanks! GreyHood ^Talk 19:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .

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

Stubs			Cleanup
	Tungokochensky District			Briceni District
	Ana Pastor			Rezina District
	Baksansky District			Moscow Botanical Garden of Academy of Sciences
	Cheboksarsky District		Merge
	Maysky District			Republic of Mordovia
	Klushino			East Asian Monsoon
	Urvansky District			San Diego Zoo
	Chereksky District		Add sources
	Zolsky District			Kalgansky District
	Countdown (2004 film)			Ruzayevsky District
	Lak people (Dagestan)			Mozdoksky District
	Shalva Natelashvili		Wikify
	Vsevolozhsky District			Vrabnitsa, Sofia
	Bat-Ölzii, Övörkhangai			Wassily Kandinsky
	Elbrussky District			Academic degree
	Foreign Affairs (Family Guy)		Expand
	Chegemsky District			List of villages in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast
	Prokhladnensky District			Vitebsk Raion
	Sofía Stamatiades			Lak language

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 Wikipedia 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) 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 22, 2011; 13:25 (UTC)

What would be the proper translation of ru:Село имени Бабушкина? Is it Imeni Babushkina? Thx in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Selo" is not a part of the name; it is a rural locality designation and should not be a part of the title.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2011; 15:08 (UTC)

Hello, In the Russian WP there is this image "File:Tintagel.jpg|Фрагмент стены с окном". It has recently been removed from the English Tintagel Castle article as misleading. It was described as a window in the castle walls but in fact is a doorway in a length of wall built in the mid 19th century. Perhaps it could be revised or removed from the Russian and Ukrainian WPs.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not very involved with the Russian or Ukrainian Wikipedia. You might want to contact one of the English-speaking admins there; ru:User:Obersachse comes to mind.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2011; 19:47 (UTC)

What do you think of this? I've been really disappointed with everything that's been going on in WP recently. Nanobear (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russavia WhisperToMe (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've stuck around this place for oh, over seven years now, and if there is anything I've noticed, it's that there is always something going on to be disappointed about. I hope Russavia will reconsider, but the decision is ultimately his.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 26, 2011; 13:23 (UTC)

Unusual naming. GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Any particular reason you didn't want to move it to Ernst Krenkel Observatory yourself?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 27, 2011; 19:18 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal, done. GreyHood ^Talk 20:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some asshole is reverting my edits. Even though it is clear I'm Tempac3. 38.121.75.194 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It's actually pretty common for editors to revert changes made by anonymous IPs to someone's user space. You can easily avoid this by making changes while logged in (and maybe while you are logged in you may even want to acknowledge your IP address, if you don't mind doing so). Another option is to contact User:Drmies and to let him/her know that you are Tempac3 (and perhaps explain why you can't log in at the moment). Seeing how it's only a sandbox, I don't foresee Drmies will have further problems with this. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2011; 17:46 (UTC)

You can start by not calling me an asshole. And no, it is not clear that you are Tempac--why would it be? You can log in, and then you can play in that sandbox to your heart's content. Additionally, you have just connected your IP to a registered Wiki account, which could be a breach of your personal security. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you folks should both take it easy. Tempac, publicly calling another person an asshole is indeed a no-no, and as you can probably see it's not benefiting you any. After all, Drmies did have a point when he reverted you. However, it is just a sandobox, for crying out loud, and the anon, whether he is Tempac or not, is not doing any damage to it; it's merely a work in progress. I don't see why a bit of good faith cannot be extended to the anon. Even if the anon happens not to be Tempac, it will take real Tempac only a few seconds to revert the sandbox to whatever state he wants to see it in.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2011; 18:07 (UTC)

Look, if some IP was messing up any of my sandboxes I'd be pissed. You'll note that I didn't warn the user for page blanking or vandalism, and in fact explained the situation to them. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, look at it from the other side. If I, for example, were unable or unwilling to log in under my account (perhaps for security reasons, or while traveling, or for a myriad other reasons) yet wanted to poke around my own sandbox as an IP, being reverted would piss me, too. While I probably wouldn't call the reverter an asshole, refusing to be extended a little bit of good faith would still be maddening. The bottom line is that it is a sandbox that's at stake here; it's not anything critical or even visible to the public at large. Why not cut the IP some slack, take his word, and let him work on whatever it is he wants to work on?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2011; 18:29 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see that other side. Not logging in and editing your own stuff and then saying it's you is in fact breaching that security--it connects the IP (and thus, possibly, location) to a user name. Some editors have an alternate account for that purpose. I just don't understand why someone would not want to log in, that is, suggest anonymity, but work on their own stuff, that is, suggest identity. But I'll drop this. If the editor refuses to log in and wants to work on their own stuff as an IP, I won't revert, but others might, and the editor/IP will just have to understand why. That it's a sandbox has little to do with it. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revealing the IP is not always a big deal. If one is traveling or using a public computer, revealing the IP is not a problem at all, and even with the personal computer or at work some people may be OK with that. From what I see, Tempac knows the implications, and if he is fine with them, then that's that. I'm dropping this too, by the way. The only reason I got involved is because of Tempac's/anon's note, and I don't believe I even talked to Tempac before today. I do, however, believe that a little good faith isn't going to hurt anything in this particular case. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 28, 2011; 18:55 (UTC)

Greetings. I apologize for bothering you, but I have very little interaction with other users and sought someone who is linked with WP:Russia. Anyway, I wonder if there is any chance that the article about Mikheil Chiaureli's 1950 Stalinist personality cult film The Fall of Berlin (film) could ever be promoted to GA status? Do you know a user who would be interested in reviewing it? I have simply encountered a number of much less significant pictures which attained GA, and decided to give it a try. Many thanks. Bahavd Gita (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! No bother at all. The best place to ask for this would be WikiProject Soviet Union, but, unfortunately, it hasn't been very active lately. There is also WikiProject Georgia—I don't know how active it is, but it's worth a try. And, of course, you could ask at WT:RUSSIA, although the activity level there is not very high either, and I don't think we have users at the moment who are interested in cinematography. Still worth a shot, I'd say. As for me personally, I'm afraid I'm not going to be of much help in this area, as it's not something I know much about. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2011; 13:22 (UTC)

Thanks! I thought so. I'll try in WP:Film. Bahavd Gita (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Could you move Bald–hairy to Bald – hairy please? As you see, I've again turned my attention to great and serious tasks ;) not only assessment. GreyHood ^Talk 11:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I see :) As for the move, what's wrong with the article remaining where it is? As far as I remember, whether the dash is spaced or not, it's both correct?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 12:05 (UTC)

Russian and Belorussian wikipedias use spacing. As for the English traditions, I'm not sure.. GreyHood ^Talk 12:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English, it's the matter of preference, not unlike the choice of the date format or using one or two spaces after the period. The only thing that matters is that one is consistent with his/her choice. I could move the article to the spaced version, because that's how it was before the moves started (wasn't it?), but I just don't see the benefit.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 13:19 (UTC)

Originally it was Bald-hairy which is wrong usage of hyphen. I think that unlike words with hyphen and single entities like North Ossetia–Alania the spacing nicely indicates that the article is about something more complex than a kind of bald-hairy creature :) GreyHood ^Talk 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are wondering why I still haven't moved this, it's because I despise this kind of spacing with every fiber of my soul :) On a more serious note, there really is no difference between the two styles whatsoever—it's just a matter of taste/preference (as long as the dash of proper kind is used). Normally, we should never make any edits the sole purpose of which is to switch from one style to another (with the exception of changing a regional variety spelling in articles with strong ties to a region which uses a different spelling). I don't think the moves are any different.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 17:01 (UTC)

I'd still propose to move the article. Using non-spaced dash between non-capitalized words or between a capitalized and non-capitalized word doesn't look nice. I fully support using non-spaced dash between parts of place names or other proper names, of course, but this is not the case. GreyHood ^Talk 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you put it up for an RM then. Since neither of us is a native speaker, we both have a chance of learning something new in the course of that RM. However, I still posit that the choice of style makes no difference in this case. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 17:32 (UTC)

OK. GreyHood ^Talk 17:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 15:00 (UTC)

I wonder how to name it shorter and in a more correct way.. GreyHood ^Talk 18:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one option would be "Pushkin Omsk State Regional Research Library", although I'll readily admit it's not much of an improvement (if it's even an improvement). Another would be just "Omsk State Regional Research Library" (unless there is another one in Omsk named exactly the same but not after Pushkin, it should work). Yet another option would be checking whether this library is known as "Pushkin Library" and to use that if it is. Perhaps other options are also available.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 18:35 (UTC)

I suppose Pushkin Omsk State Library or just Omsk State Library will do [2] [3]? GreyHood ^Talk 18:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 18:42 (UTC)

OK. GreyHood ^Talk 18:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, could you please delete this Template:Did you know nominations/Yongning Temple Stele. The article was already nominated to DYK.. GreyHood ^Talk 20:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 6, 2011; 20:24 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! GreyHood ^Talk 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please move to Semyon Fedorets. GreyHood ^Talk 17:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2011; 17:22 (UTC)

Thx! GreyHood ^Talk 17:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar request: please move Aleksandr Pavlovich Smorchkov to Aleksandr Smorchkov. GreyHood ^Talk 17:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Alexander Smorchkov. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2011; 17:37 (UTC)

Thx again. Seems I've finished with the Korean war aces, no more requests should follow today. GreyHood ^Talk 17:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Those are rather obvious anyway and easy to move.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2011; 17:40 (UTC)

Could you please move Eurasianists to Eurasianism? Looks like an uncontroversial change. GreyHood ^Talk 12:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup; done!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 10, 2011; 13:21 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Strange that it wasn't moved by someone long before. GreyHood ^Talk 13:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the Category:Settlements of urban type in the Sakha Republic‎ be moved? GreyHood ^Talk 18:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that would be beneficial. The Sakha Republic does not have urban-type settlements; the type was explicitly changed to just "settlements" some years ago. The cat is called "settlements of urban type" to contrast them with the "settlements of rural type" (regular "посёлки") elsewhere. I suppose we could rename the cat to just "Settlements in the Sakha Republic" (because they don't have any "settlements of rural type"), but that would just make it more confusing within the big picture, not to mention that the term "settlement" is ambiguous with a layman term for what we otherwise bill as "inhabited localities". All in all, in the context of Russia, the more specific the designation, the less confusing it is (although it is impossible to do away with all confusion, unfortunately). Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 10, 2011; 18:18 (UTC)

Yes, I just have supposed there should be some reason why this category is named in a different way. GreyHood ^Talk 18:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Super Disambiguator's Barnstar
	For all of your hard work setting up pages of place names with the same name! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! Nice change of pace, too—I normally just get beaten on the head for creating those :) I do hope, however, that they help those who are actually using them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 15:56 (UTC)

Well someday we will have articles on them. How is the directory coming along. Will it be ready before 2020?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, you are expecting it that soon?! :)))

Kidding aside, it is actually mostly done. There is still tons to do as far as refs go (for now they need to be taken care manually), and there are a couple federal subjects I've given up on and used OKATO (because nothing better seems to be forthcoming), but the data core is in and usable. I'm sorting out the high-level special cases now (such as this), and am hoping to start working on the selsoviets/rural settlements framework next—that'll make it possible to link the selsoviets on pages like this and also easily generate the lists of administrative/municipal divisions in the articles about the districts (similar to this). I don't expect anyone else to be much excited about these developments, but I sure am! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 16:05 (UTC)

Did you say you have the ability to code and propose something yourself, or would he need a bot operator? Because the bot scene for content is in dire straits these days. I tried to get somebody to create lists of all of the listed buildings in the UK twice, with no success.. At times (like now) having surveyed the Vietnam district stubs and missing communes, the potential scale of wikipedia and sheer amount of work needs gets too much.You probably thought that after I created the remaining districts! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We'll definitely need a bot operator eventually, but it's a bit too early to worry about that just yet. In order for someone to be able to program a bot, they'll need to know exactly what needs to be done, and I can't provide that information until I do a number of test cases manually and then program a rudimentary semi-automated script to test the flow. The data core may be in, but a bunch of bells and whistles is yet missing, and without those a bot run could easily become a total disaster. Don't worry, though—I'm not about to stop working on this now that the most boring and labor-intensive part is almost taken care of!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 16:23 (UTC)

Can you unlock Mường Luân. Cheers. Check again its blocked from creating an article at that page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not protected? Is the link correct?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 21:45 (UTC)

Check again its blocked from creating an article at that page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope; I'm not getting any warnings.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 21:49 (UTC)

Just try typing something into the page and saving it then. If it works I'll follow suite. Same with Mường Lói. I believe its blacklisted for some reason. I have an article waiting in my sandbox!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have abandoned you yesterday—I was one foot out the door when I got your unlock request and didn't get a chance to take care of the blacklisting problem. I trust this is now resolved?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 13:25 (UTC)

This OK. Its been addressed at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist although the stubborn response appears to indicate I'm stuck with it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a ложка дегтя as compared to the discussion above (which is a бочка мёда for me as well :)). Could you please move Strizhi to Strizhi (disambiguation), and Strizhi aerobatic team to Strizhi. The aerobatic team is clearly a primary topic here, it is one of two most renown in Russia and quite unique in the world. GreyHood ^Talk 16:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, at the risk of sounding like a village bumpkin, I never heard of that team before yesterday :) Just to be doubly sure—they are that well-known, right?

Also, you've just moved it to "Strizhi aerobatic team", which is a much better name than what I had come up with, and which seems quite fine on its own. Are you sure that just "Strizhi" is a better choice? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 16:53 (UTC)

It is the top military aerobatic team in Russia. Some say they were first in the world to perform on jet fighters, and along with Russian Knights they are the only team to use real military aircrafts (heavy jets) from an acting Air Force. They are seen on every 9 May parade and on various international airshows, regularly on MAKS Airshow. GreyHood ^Talk 17:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't doubt they are; I'm just surprised I never heard of them before. It's a little embarrassing, is all—my head is filled with all kinds of trivial crap, but the name of the top military aerobatic team in Russia doesn't ring a bell even faintly :)

Anyway, all I'm really checking is whether you really want me to move it back to "Strizhi", or would leaving it at "Strizhi aerobatic team" (with perhaps redirecting "Strizhi" to it and linking to the dab page via a hatnote) also work? I don't have a preference myself, in case you were wondering. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 17:10 (UTC)

The only thing I'm not sure about, whether it should be Strizhi or Swifts (aerobatic team). But if we don't translate, Strizhi should be used without a disambiguator. GreyHood ^Talk 17:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanna think about it for a day or two? I'll help move it to wherever necessary; just holler.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 17:15 (UTC)

Don't like to think on minor questions for long.. Google gives much more results for "Swifts aerobatic team", than for "Strizhi aerobatic team", so looks like like it should be translated. But shouldn't then Strizhi become a redirect to Swifts (aerobatic team)? GreyHood ^Talk 17:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the article ends up at "Swifts", then the redirect I'm not so sure of. A (n admittedly unscientific) gbooks search returns eight hits for "strizhi village|town|settlement" and five for "strizhi aerobatic". An even less scientific google search for these terms (with "-wikipedia" appended) returns fewer hits for the team. Primary topic requirements, however, say that the topic need to be more common than all other uses combined to be considered primary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 17:43 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure that a top aerobatic team is much more primary subject than several minor settlements. But, given the recent move, it is a minor question. Btw, recently I've had a problem with another translation: how do you think the phrase Камнем по голове should be correctly translated into English? GreyHood ^Talk 17:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the urban-type settlement in Kirov Oblast isn't that minor, but you do have a point (and the fact that the article was getting about 1,000 views a month before I moved it certainly supports it). At any rate, I think we've wasted enough time on this. Just let me know where you want the article/disambig/redirect, and I'll do it :) If anyone has a problem with that solution, they are welcome to knock themselves out discussing the alternatives.

As for the translation, I honestly don't know (but it's probably not "stone onto a head"). However, since it is an album title, and since the album has never been released or reviewed in any English-speaking countries, the only acceptable way to title it is by transliterating.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 18:01 (UTC)

OK. With Strizhi let's leave it as it is for now. GreyHood ^Talk 18:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, the amount of stuff you created for wiki makes me crazy %) Now I'll assess that category as well, sure. By the way, by now we should have all federal subjects, districts, cities, towns, urban-type settlements, villages, military bases, and general articles and lists and set indices of subdivisions assessed. This means that the Category:Human geography of Russia task force articles should contain most things related to the topic we have on-wiki, except some historical divisions and categories related to big cities. From 1 December the PP list should reflect the viewership of the topic as it is. GreyHood ^Talk 21:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't stop now, can I? :) Those two cats only contain a small portion of what needs to be done anyway.

I've also figured out that you are concentrating on the human geography taskforce, since every day my watchlist gets inundated with hundreds of your assessments :) But yes, it is good news that we'll have at least one taskforce almost 100% assessed! Thanks much for your hard work—it's much appreciated.

By the way, I, too, have your talk page on my watchlist—feel free not to copy your responses here. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2011; 21:41 (UTC)

STOP reverting my edits to Stavropol sometimes it helps to use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE , Stavropol was known by the name of Stavtordt in the days of the Russian Empire, Simular to the renaming of Tsaritsyn to Stalingrad or St petersburg to Leningrad and then back again. Also, when you type "Stavtordt" in google or bing maps it always links you to Stavropol which may be a big clue. Also BOTH are in (or were) Ossetia and this guy happened to be born in Stavtordt, which was later renamed stavropol; i believe he stated that fact in one of his interviews with the New Scientist. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 21:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name Stavtordt is unheard of in Russia, and all Google links to it both in Cyrillic and Latin are about Grigori Tokaty. That's strange. Perhaps that was some other location than Stavropol, but it is very strange that it is so unknown. GreyHood ^Talk 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Stavtordt" looks like an invented word. According to Russian article and references there, Tokaty was born in Ossetia, in the settlement of Novy Urukh (Novourukhskoye), not in Stavtordt or Stavropol. GreyHood ^Talk 22:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about that for a sec, please answer my question on your talk page ; this is an important issue. User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 22:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ez, why did you call my article a hoax? Grigori Tokaty User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 22:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Goldblooded! To answer your question, I didn't actually call it a hoax; I said I had reasons to believe it might be a hoax. That's why I requested a second opinion from an uninvolved editor instead of just tagging it with {{db-hoax}} and calling it a day. With the above discussion and a bit of more thorough background research in mind, I am now pretty sure that the person is real, but still think that most of the facts in that article need to be verified. Not something I can help with, unfortunately, but it always bears remembering that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

As far as "Stavtordt" goes, I'm with Greyhood on this one. If this were really the former name of today's Stavropol, it'd be really easy to verify—it's a big city with well-documented history. As it stands, it can't be verified because it's simply not true. Consider this obituary, for example. Nowhere does is say that "Stavtordt" is the former name of Stavropol. Furthermore, Stavropol is not in Ossetia and never had been a part of it. More importantly, there is no official record of Stavropol having a different name in the 19th century. Just for kicks, I've consulted my library, and searched the three applicable books that I have. The registry of inhabited localities in Stavropol Governorate (published in 1911, using the 1909 data) lists the city as Stavropol. The military and statistical review of Stavropol Governorate, published in 1851 (which is fifty-eight years before Tokaty's reported birthdate), consistently refers to the city as Stavropol and mentions no other names—in fact, it states that the city was established under this very name in 1785 in place of a fortress that existed there since 1777 (something I knew already, but it's always good to have a verification). A somewhat amateurish, but still usable 1888 description of Caucasus Krai (which was the predecessor of Caucasus Oblast, which, in turn, later became Stavropol Governorate) also states no other names of the city. This, coupled with the obituary not linking "Stavtordt" and "Stavropol", is, in my opinion, quite sufficient to revert your addition to the Stavropol article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 14:06 (UTC)

Looks like hoax at the first glance, but there is a Russian article: ru:Токати, Григори. Several points of the biography are highly unlikely, though, and they've questioned credibility of the information on Russian wiki too, but it seems that there are enough sources behind it. GreyHood ^Talk 21:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting this on his page? Since i created that article wasnt this directed at me ?User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 21:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's responding to the question I asked him. It is common courtesy to first make sure that the article is indeed a hoax before running to the author accusing him of the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 14:08 (UTC)

Please move Dmitry Khvostov (poet) to Dmitry Khvostov. I suppose classic poets have preference over modern sportsmen. GreyHood ^Talk 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, and the poet is definitely more notable than the basketball player, but both are still pretty obscure. I would recommend creating a dab at "Dmitry Khvostov" and listing both there. Better yet, create a last name article at Khvostov, list all people with this last name there (including these two Dmitrys), and redirect "Dmitry Khvostov" there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 16:08 (UTC)

Well, really, the "khvostovism" was a very notable phenomenon in the Golden Age of Russian Poetry! Alas, what an utter disregard you show to the person who was so eagerly ridiculed by Pushkin himself! :) Seriously, it needs to be moved. If we take the Russian sources into consideration, I'm sure that Khvostov the Poet is by far the primary topic compared to other Khvostovs. GreyHood ^Talk 16:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike with Strizhi above, I know who Khvostov was :) It's just that in my book he falls into the category of notable but obscure people. An average reader isn't going to be shocked to land on a disambig page when searching for "Dmitry Khvostov", and neither article is going to get so many views to justify splitting hairs like that. This is by no means an issue I feel strongly about, but it is one I am reluctant to touch. I am one of those people who prefer to dab everything, unless primary topic can be overwhelmingly substantiated. Feel free to RM it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 16:31 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate the article for DYK and can't wait the result of RM (also the DYK article should be nominated no later than 5 days after creation). Also I'll go on vacation after two days, and don't like to start new discussions I should watch for. So I need to ask you to make the move. Is there any way through the wall of bureaucracy? ;) GreyHood ^Talk 16:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle all you want, the answer is no :)) If I later need to explain the reasons behind the move, I don't want to have this picture as my only support :)

As for the RM, you can nominate the article for DYK and file a move request at the same time. Whether the article is moved before, during, or after the DYK process, I don't see how it is going to create any problems.

And did you say "vacation"?! Didn't you go just recently? You Russians work far too little! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 17:02 (UTC)

%)%)%) OK. GreyHood ^Talk 17:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why do you think WP:RUSSIA does not have A-class or should not have? There was at least one A-class article a month ago and recently I've assessed more. GreyHood ^Talk 19:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is even a Category:A-Class Russia articles. GreyHood ^Talk 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class isn't like the rest of the classes. To qualify, the article is supposed to undergo a review, similar to GAN or FAC, but with the criteria established by the WikiProject members (and the criteria should be high enough as the A-Class falls in between GA and FA). We have nothing of the sort (not many WikiProjects do, as a matter of fact). The category is there for consistency and convenience of automated tools, I think, and at any rate it's handy to have it around in case we ever develop a process to deal with A-Class.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 20:17 (UTC)

Couldn't we simply establish a rule that if some other project assess an article as A-class, than WP:RUSSIA can do the same? GreyHood ^Talk 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria reads:

For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page and supported there by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the discussion page.

This basically means we just could agree to use other WPs A-Class assessments it seems, if at least three users support it for an article. And I can't see why anyone should not support it in general, though of course there could be issues with some particular articles. GreyHood ^Talk 20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also all current A-class Russia articles are A-class in WP:MILHIST where they've undergone a review. GreyHood ^Talk 21:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We most certainly could, but the would defeat the whole point of A-Class. It is supposed to be WikiProject-specific, and the A-Class criteria of, say, WPMILHIST aren't necessarily going to be a good fit for WP:RUSSIA. They would be looking at things which are totally unrelated to the goals of our WikiProject.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 12, 2011; 21:03 (UTC)

I still think that we could accept WP:MILHIST ratings as default, unless there is disagreement from some editors regarding some articles, which will leave assessment de jure project-specific. We could also use a simplified procedure described above to have some original WP:RUSSIA A-class articles as good candidates for FA or GA. GreyHood ^Talk 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think about this proposal, or at least about its first part? Won't you mind if I reset the WP:RUSSIA/WP:MILHIST articles to have the same assessments? Not only it may help to identify better articles, it is really nice to have more of different-colored bright icons in the lists of featured content :) GreyHood ^Talk 16:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like it, frankly. Try looking at it from another angle. Suppose we do as you suggested. The way I see it, in practice this would generally boil down to you finding an article during one of your assessment rounds and posting a message for me and another more or less active editor to come over and be one of the "three users" needed to form a consensus. We all diligently post a meaningless "support" vote, and you change the assessment letter from whatever it was to A. And what's the great benefit of this? Three people will have wasted a few minutes of their time on a bureaucratic procedure just to change an assessment letter from GA or B to A? I just think it's utterly pointless—just because it can be done does not necessarily mean it's worth doing. If we had an actual review process of our own, that, of course, would have given some meaning to that letter (not to mention the time spent on a review will actually go towards improvement an article rather than jumping through a hoop which we ourselves will have erected). Nanobear a couple months ago actually asked me about what I think about establishing a proper A-Class review process—I said that I generally support it, but don't think our WikiProject can pull enough interested people for the reviews to go anywhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 16:29 (UTC)

OK, I drop my proposal for a simplified WP:RUSSIA-specific review, but still I think that we could agree to accept WP:MILHIST ratings by default, though reserving the right to disagree with them in particular cases. This is unlikely to do any harm to the project or to take any time from the editors. GreyHood ^Talk 16:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think it still makes things more confusing to the users of our assessments. Come to think of it, it's often hard to draw a line between Stub- and Start-Classes; having A-Class in between GA and FA makes it even worse. Regardless of which process for A-Class is used, why do you think having it is better than not having it? All it tells, after all, is that the article is probably better than GA, likely is not up to FA standards, and that some WikiProject looked at it. What's in it for us? If we have no uses for a class, why bother with using it for assessments? That, I guess, is where my mind gets stuck at.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 16:50 (UTC)

While the distinctions may be fine and subtle, nevertheless having A-class class helps to identify better candidates to be promoted to FA sometime. We have already over 170 GA-class articles and will have many more soon, and we have many of B-class articles. Orienteering in such an amount of stuff is not that easy, and having an additional grade makes the picture a bit more distinctive. When the work with assessment is largely over, I might very well to move my attention to promoting some articles to GA and FA, and A-class might be useful. GreyHood ^Talk 17:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If A-Class is going to be helpful to you in identifying the FA candidates, then, of course, by all means do whatever is necessary, although I don't see 170 GAs to choose from as overwhelming (if you only attempt to improve the subjects you know a lot about, having to choose from ~200 candidates isn't really that hard). I would still recommend that we finish the rest of the assessments first before embarking onto the A-Class wagon :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 17:08 (UTC)

As I've already said soon there will be more of GA-articles ;) (when I return from travel and continue assessment) And since all A-Class are already listed on the military task force page, it is not really a problem to manage the class. If you don't mind, I'll make all WP:MILHIST A-Class articles listed there A-Class articles in WP:RUSSIA as well. Also, it seems we should do that anyway for consistency, since our military task force is at the same time WP:MILHIST taskforce. GreyHood ^Talk 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is going to catch you and do this if you proceed that way, but as I said before, I am not a supporter of whistling, if you get my drift :) You're on your own there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 17:22 (UTC)

This is a bit of, hmmm, "слишком образно сказано" for me ;) What d'u mean by whistling? GreyHood ^Talk 17:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing you meant just yesterday :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 17:48 (UTC)

Heh, that was about finding easier ways rather than dealing with the entire burden of wikibureacracy ;) But since we've already found rather peculiar and uncommon way to incorporate WP:MILHIST/RUSSIA to WP:RUSSIA, we could legitimately go along the same road a bit further in order to uphold consistency ;) GreyHood ^Talk 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was actually wondering when someone's gonna notice our "peculiar and uncommon" solution and use it to beat the snot out of us :) Only shows how little it all matters unless someone decides to blow an elephant out of it :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 13, 2011; 18:00 (UTC)

This reminds me of the need to create the article Russia is the motherland of elephants ;) Should return to the task as soon as I can... GreyHood ^Talk 21:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, I didn't know that it was so important for you to have US-centric date format in non-US-related articles. But, by all means, if you think that looks ok, enjoy.

Cheers. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! It is my responsibility as an administrator to uphold the guidelines the community has approved (in this case, WP:DATERET). Now, I don't occupy all my time here with seeking out the "date format violations", but I do make sure the guidelines are being conformed with once I stumble upon a situation that needs resolving. This isn't personal at all. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 19:32 (UTC)

Hey. I've started a discussion here. Your input is welcome. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation, but that guideline does not really interest me that much :) I'm merely upholding what it says—if it is changed to say something different, then that's what I'll be upholding. Best of luck to you, however. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 20:19 (UTC)

[4] [5]. If you don't go very soon on your planned vacation in October as well (do I remember right?) I hope you'd support my rather obvious statement on the intersections. Just in case %) (Btw, I believe by now there is many evidence to consider me your sock or vice versa %) ) GreyHood ^Talk 20:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, that is unexpected an unexpected consequence if I've ever seen one :) Be careful, or you'll be blocked for a few thousand years as an "obvious" sockpuppet of every vandal and POV-pusher Wikipedia had ever seen :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 14, 2011; 20:06 (UTC)

Nooo, I'm Spartacus ! NVO (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]