Talk:Districts of Mongolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mongols (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mongols, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mongol culture, history, language, and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. WikiProject icon
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 

Lists of sums[edit]

I've removed the lists of all sums for the moment. They were out of sync with the lists in the individual aimag articles. Since those lists also aren't completely final and sourced, there's no point in keeping incorrect and redundant copies here. Updating both versions in parallel is needless extra work anyway. Once we have reliable and confirmed information, we may or may not add a list here again, but if so, then probably not in the same form, but possibly in alphabetical order or something. --Latebird 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree wholeheartedly. The article has been completely degraded by removing the list. This should be the home article that links to the individual aimags. Where is the source? If not, the map would be the source, taken from a more recent map. I will update the maps accordingly soon and relist the sums. Rarelibra 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I will start on updating the maps this week and hope to have it all put together by the end of next week (in between life's busy work and school, etc.). Rarelibra 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not inherently opposed to having a list here, but it should be up to date, correct, and offer some added value. There is no point in listing them aimag-by-aimag here, because that doesn't offer anything beyond what's already in the aimag articles. A table listing them alphabetically might be a lot more useful (maybe similar to List_of_rural_districts_of_Germany).

Are you getting ahead with turning the maps into SVG? The extremely huge map here is the perfect example why we should avoid raster graphics... --Latebird 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The list here offers an extreme amount of value, and you are not the owner to make such judgment calls to simply delete everything - you are destroying the hard work of others. Now give it some time, and it will be fixed/updated. There is a point listing them here, because there are countless pages like this one.
As far as SVG, I am making my maps in .png as usual for now. Rarelibra 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you even trying to understand my arguments? The list in this form is entirely redundant, and it has more errors than correct entries. I know you put a lot of work into it, but that alone does not create "extreme amount of value". There is no point in repeating the same information in the same form here as it is already presented elsewhere in WP. On the other hand, a list or table with a different approach to the same information would indeed be useful. But that can't be built from this one.

Why are you not continuing on the path that you found with Bogomolov for SVG maps? The multi-megabyte PNG map here almost crashes my browser each time I load it. It would be just a few kilobytes in SVG --Latebird 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok - a few things here. First, the multi-megabyte map is the one from Bogomolov. I don't know why he chose to load such a massive-sized map, but I will be correcting with smaller sizing and also with breakout maps for each of the aimags. The information isn't redundant... it is sequential in the hierarchy. An example is how you go to the Regions of Italy page (and each region has a page with more description), then the Provinces of Italy page (and each province has its own page), etc. This is no different, and is definitely not redundant. Are you understanding me? This information has a lot of value. Just give me time and I will ensure this page is updated significantly in the next week or two. And contrary to what you state, it can be built from the current page. Rarelibra 17:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as you present the information in the same way, it IS redundant (and zero work, because you could simply copy the "Administrative subdivision" section from each aimag). If you list all sums eg. in alphabetical order, then you create a new way to access the same information, which eliminates the redundancy. Provinces of Italy is a bad and redundant example, List of rural districts of Germany is a good one (there are very few of those). As to the actual names, you better start with the tables in the aimag articles or the list here, which are correct to the best of my knowledge.

Wrt the maps, you may want to check my latest comment to Bogomolov here, if you haven't seen it yet. --Latebird 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, suffice to say you talk about how a good example the List of rural districts of Germany is... hmmmm... when I go to the page for Bavaria I find a list of those in Bavaria (both rural and urban), so that information is redundant (as is the information on the aforementioned urban page)... as is redundant on the List of administrative divisions of Germany page as well (which has ALL the districts listed), and then I go to Upper Franconia, and see a list of districts there as well. Hmmmm. Redundancy abounds. But I don't think so. It is part of a logical pattern of showing various administrative levels (you can see this in France, Russia, Senegal, or any number of other country administrative division articles.
I will list the sums by aimag, corrected as per the map the Bogomolov has presented, and counter-matched to the reference you provided. I will then work through the various aimag articles to ensure their accuracy (if you wish to help, you can do this while I correct this page). If not, then all you are doing is providing static and (seemingly) wishing to delete other author's hard work. Rarelibra 21:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite all the excitement and accusations, you have yet to present a single argument against an alphabetical listing. Care to elaborate? --Latebird 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have yet to present a single argument against the present outline, other than personal preference. Once the proper entities are corrected, the outline will work great. Rarelibra 01:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have png files for every aimag, I was waiting for SVG conversion, but if you need in png... What with multi-megabyte image - it was made as palliative, better this 700 KB multi-megabyte map then old one. I have corrected sum names according new romanization rules. Bogomolov.PL 08:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Rarelibra, I made my core argument several times: Presenting the information here in the same way as in the aimag articles doesn't add any information. Presenting it here in a different way offers an alternative information architecture to access the individual sums, which creates extra value. Btw: Why did you move all the country specific information back to the generic Sum (subnational entity)?

We will have to agree to disagree. This format exists in many articles, is straight forward, and provides valuable information. You are talking about a simple, alpha-order list, this page presents a list by aimag (easy reference) with breakout maps that help aid the reader. That is very different than just a list and provides more usable information. Period. Rarelibra 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bogomolov, the problem is with the high resolution of 10059 × 4943 pixels. It seems that the Wikimedia software is unable to scale images of that size, so that the thumbnail included here actually loads the full size image. The file may be 700 kb as a compressed file on disk, but to display it, the browser must uncompress the informationto to about 49 MB in memory (assuming one byte per pixel). You may not notice that if you have a big and fast computer, but it is still invonvenient. Vector formats like SVG don't have that problem, and we won't need PNG anymore once we have that. --Latebird 09:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes,yes,yes. I'm on the vector format side. And I really have 2 Gb RAM on my comp, sorry. That is why I didn't recognize this problem in time, thank you, LateBird. But I don't have SVG convertor, sorry. I can provide you only with Mapinfo, AutoCAD, ArcView and MicroStation format vector files Bogomolov.PL 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Two problems with the SVG converter for MapInfo - 1) it converts the entire layer, thus you have to custom clip, second, the input has to be in MapInfo format (or a transferable shapefile, etc). Rarelibra 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)