A hoax indeed, but quite a good one. 'The "ghost station" Sodoor' mentioned on the external link is a dead giveaway - see Sodor. Cheers, Tonywalton | Talk 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chandmani-Őndör in transliteration i lost(Hovsgol map). May be in German different transliteration rules? Really ь in Mongolian words does not mean any sound, it shows precedent consonant softening. If you have time and disposition - check my maps Mongolia_Arhangay_2005_sum.png and the rest with the same naming Bogomolov.PL 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks! Yes, the soft sign should be left away in transliteration. I've moved my other comments to Talk:Aymguud_of_Mongolia, so that other people will see them as well. --Latebird 16:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a tool that I can load into MapInfo (someone wrote it) and converts the vector file to svg... this is the result. I will have to tweak it and see about modifying the code.
Oh, and bonus points if you can identify the area of the map. :) Rarelibra 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That's even an easier solution than it might have been. I hope it doesn't only do distorted outlines... ;)
But the dutch coast has such a characteristic shape that even the weird proportions couldn't fool me. --Latebird 22:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12 of March 2007 the sum map (it's raster version is in WP Image:Mongolia_sum_map.png) I'd sent to RareLibra with the purpose of SVG conversion. May be RareLibra will do this job Bogomolov.PL 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That big map looks great, but it is really a demonstration why we need SVG! There are some small quirks, eg. with how the names in Orkhon aimag are displayed (cut off). I'm also not sure if the small aimags have all the sums present. I just updated the tables in all the aimag articles with the correct (I hope) spellings of all sums according to WP:MON. Maybe you and Rarelibra can do a last check if all of them are correct in the map as well. --Latebird 17:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made SVG version of sum map, but CorelDraw does not understand fonts (it drops every character into polygons, it is not you want, I think). Version without texts you have here SVG test. Do you can help me in vector+text conversion into CorelDraw? I never deal with Corel, it was my first experience for SVG conversion only Bogomolov.PL 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed not a very efficient way to create an SVG, and destroys some of the advantages of the format again. Unfortunately, I don't have any experiance with CorelDraw, so I can't help you there. We'll have to check if there are any other ways to do it. --Latebird 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for withdrawing the Afd. I enjoyed improving the article, especially as I knew nothing about the subject. I learned a lot about it very quickly! Totnesmartin 12:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ugghh. I realized that i reverted to older version. I wanted to put the pictures into a proper place. Sigh... E104421 02:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, accidents happen. --Latebird 02:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tracked down those statements that User:Maork kept reinserting into the article; turns out they're verbatim quotes from the LoC country study done in 1989. I added inline citations to the article to reflect this. Dunno if all this is actually true or not, but until we find better information that contradicts all that, it's kinda hard to justify removing it. Cheers, cab 06:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so we have a source, thanks for tracking that down. Unfortunately, that raises two other problems: For one, most of the article seems to be a copyvio. And then, that study describes the situation as of more than ten years before democratization, which completely reformed all of the legal and social systems of the country. Its information is therefore only of historical interest, if even that. --Latebird 08:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, most articles about population groups have a history section. Better not to rely on only one source, of course, but it's a starting point. Anyway, LoC studies, being Works of the United States Government, are in the public domain, so word-for-word copies aren't actually violating any copyrights. cab 08:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no copyvio then. Nothing against a history section either. But reproducing this information in the present tense 20 years after the fact is extremely misleading. And to include speculation ("perhaps intentionally") by the authors of the study also isn't a very good idea. --Latebird 08:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, you recently caught one vandal's work on the Mongolia article, but missed another. Please use care in this in the future, as you missed another vandal's handiwork. Folks like me who patrol vandalism might easily see a vandalism reversion by an established user and simply move on, assuming things were completely cleaned up.
I'm sure you care to make Wikipedia a better place, as do I, so hopefully the tone of my message here comes off as guiding, not chiding. Here's to a better Wikipedia, and keep up the good work. -Quintote 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the most active editors on Mongolian topics for quite some time, I also tend to revert most of the vandalism happening there. Your concern and help is appreciated, but I don't think that I still need guidance in this specific matter. --Latebird 10:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if my tone came off as condescending. That certainly wasn't my intent. I composed the message above after having checked your edit history and knowing that you have been an active contributor for some time. I meant to offer merely a reminder, but regrettably chose my wording based on rhyming rather than being as clear as possible. -Quintote 02:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I regularly fix incomplete reverts by other editors, and I'm glad if someone else catches my own. Nobody's perfect, after all... --Latebird 03:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for the Kh/H distinction in the spelling of the city name Khovd (city) vs. that of the province (Hovd Province? Considering that there is no distinction in the original Mongolian, would not it make sense to decide how we want to transcribe this word (and 'Х-' elsewhere) and stick to this rule everywhere? (I suppose there is some standard already, I just don't know what it is). Vmenkov 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The decision is currently being made at Wikipedia:Romanization of Mongolian. Technically, that still needs to be elevated to an official policy, but the Kh has turned out to be uncontroversial. I haven't changed the province yet, because I'm not sure if it shouldn't be named "Khovd aimag" instead. --Latebird 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, all that stuff about moving images to Commons confused me greatly. I'm sorry, I'm still not too proficient with the technical parts of Wikipedia editing. Do I have to do it or can you move the images?
Second, that Handsthere fellow keeps undoing my edits to the Khalkin Gol article. Not sure how to proceed from here. Vidor 19:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploading images to Commons works exactly as here, you just need to register there as well. Once the images are there, you can have the copies here deleted. It's better if you do that yourself, because you're the licensor.
As to the dispute, the first step is trying to talk to him. If necessary, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts may bring some help, and after that you have the full palette of Wikipedia:Resolving disputes at your disposal. The important part is not to take it personally and stay civil at all times (don't allow anyone to spoil your style). Sometimes it just takes patience... --Latebird 01:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you're placing a speedy delete tag on a redirect (or any page) please don't blank the page. Just add the db tag to the top. Thanks! KafzielTalk 12:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to remember (fortunately I think I only did that with redirect pages). --Latebird 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
would you care to explain this edit? I agree that articles should not give coordinates that are already given at articles linked to, but at the very least, the location of a river's source, or the point at which it crosses a boundary, are perfectly relevant to the article about that river. Of the three sets of coordinates you removed, none was in any "linked article" as your summary suggested. dab(𒁳) 12:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those multiple coordinates in the text are not very helpful, and make it rather difficult to read. Both Burkhan Khaldun and Lake Hulun have coordinates, and both are closer/smaller than your precision of 100 km. In other words, you're not adding any information. The exact location where a river crosses a national border may be relevant for a travel guide, but not for an encyclopedia (in this specific case, that location is literally "nowhere", and probably not even interesting for tourists). Have you seen many articles about rivers, where the border crossings are specified with coordinates? If not, then that should give you somethign to think about.
Btw.: If you really want to include all the trivia about a river, then you might want to look into Template:Geobox_River. This offers a lot of possibilities without clogging the article text.
As to the other article, you may be very fond of Kravitz, but I'm not sure how important his personal hobby really is. Do you have any third party sources to confirm his notability? The exact location of his excavations is clearly insignificant, and publishing it may even be harmful. Do you want tourists to go there and start digging on their own? Note also that there are several places named "Bayanbulag" in Mongolia, and the one there is probably the least interesting. I couldn't find it on any map, are you sure it is even a permanent settlement? In any case, your link is misleading, the sum is a much better reference. --Latebird 13:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are tosgons separate from sums. But there are tosgons incorporated into sums. Tosgon term is in use to define settlement type (urban), but not administrative level. To my opinion tosgon term is very close to "посёлок городского типа" ([urban-type settlement] in Russian). Very rich with cities and tosgons is Selenge aimag. Sums and incorporated into sums cities and tosgons list:
So it seems that "Tosgon" essentially translates to "Town" in English? Do we have enough relevant information to create an article about this, or would that only be a dictionary entry? --Latebird 13:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In official use is "village" term, not town. My dictionary tells: village - small town (amer.). But most correct is urban-type settlement, the tosgon idea came from Soviet time. For Soviets ПГТ was very natural. Mostly tosgons were bilt in Soviet time for mines, railway stations etc. All statistics add tosgon population to urban one, their area to "хот тосгон бусад суурин газар".Bogomolov.PL 07:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your opinion about this document [1] map. Bogomolov.PL 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a map, what am I missing? --Latebird 07:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need pump this file to your computer, scroll to the beginning and you will find map with urban settlements Bogomolov.PL 08:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know how PDF works, but I still don't see a map. Are you sure it's the right file? --Latebird 08:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, wrong link, correct:[2]Bogomolov.PL 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, there's a map. What aspects of it do you expect me to comment on? It looks like those are the places that the ADB considers "urban", but I have no idea if that involves any kind of official status. --Latebird 11:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are wright, but for a moment I felt "Yes,yes,yes!". I was in mistake... Exists [3] with the sums list (1994 year population data) Bogomolov.PL 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And pay your attention on NEW Ulan Bator area: it has two enclaves (Bagakhangai düüreg in Tov, Baganuur düüreg on Tov-Khentei border). All maps I've updated. This enclaves (first 140 sq.km, second - 620) never were noted on the maps. Both were former Soviet military bases (first - air base, second - land forces base). Civil city Baganuur was bilt by Soviets for coal mines and electricity power station, it is in top 10 of largest Mongolian cities and wants separate fron Ulan Bator. Enclaves presence is normal for Soviet cities: Moscow has several enclaves, even 250,000 population Bogomolov.PL 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting information! I actually thought there were two Baganuurs, one Düüreg and a city in Töv, but if I understand you correctly then those are one and the same? That information should definitively go to the respective articles Baganuur and Bagakhangai. (Btw: They're EXclaves from the perspective of UB, and ENclaves from the perspective of Töv.) --Latebird 13:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With exclaves you are wright, but I still mix this two definitions, sorry. Yes, this Baganuur is that Baganuur. And Baganuur looks like normal Soviet city, it was build by Soviets and for Soviets. It was opinion pool, 91.4% voted for separate city, but decision belongs to UB. Baganuur supplies UB with power, will be built new one power station, so UB needs this city.
Bagakhangai also the same, but its future is not so clear - its population reduced from 6000 to 3000. Official perspective plan (2006 - 2020) shows new housing, but jobs...
This tosgon (in fact) has former Soviet airfield (you can find it in GoogleEarth) and railway station - line from Baganuur and Ulan-Ude - Beijing line crossing. Bogomolov.PL 07:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I know it's a bit late, but is there a way to automatically redirect all links to a renamed article? Yaan 18:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No built-in method that I know of. Theoretically a bot could do it, but I'm have no idea who might operate a suitable one. --Latebird 18:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bolloxs posted the following comment on your user page, although I suspect he meant to put it here. I reverted the change to your userpage, and placing it here:
i don't understand your revising a factual point, my son lead me onto this site,as an assisitant to an architect that designed that TV station i was famigliar with both UK companies that done the project, it would seem very relevant that that was included. ????
The article in question is about the TV station, and not about the people who happened to be involved in its construction. Your addition doesn't help our readers to understand the nature of C1 Television. It only serves to satisfy your vanity about your son and his employer. Apart from that, it's Original Research withouth any reference to reliable published sources. --Latebird 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so the fact that is is Mongolia's first SDI station is non important ? why is your opinion gospel ? Vanity ? i removed the comapny and added digital and yet you alter that ? how strange you are to comment on an emotion through reading a few lines.
Yes there is relevant and reliable sources, if you look at the C1.MN website in Mongolian, you are Mongol ? it states who built the station and the fact of it being Mongolia's most technically advanced station, working in pure SDI[serial digital] perhaps it's you who should check your facts!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolloxs (talk • contribs)
User Fordan has already asked you to sign discussion entries with ~~~~. Please do so, as it makes it much easier to follow a debate.
If you want to add disputed information, then it is your responsibility to provide sources, not mine. I was unable to find any reference to "SDI" on www.c1.mn, can you be a little more specific with your pointer?
As to whether it's "important", that's entirely a question of perspective. Does their audience care? And if so, why? --Latebird 23:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
oh dear, you just can't help yourself can you. "according to the station", how much more proof do you need. and fully digital is SDI, that is the term for digital so you should use the correct terminology if you are to make an edit on someone elses edit. why do you feel your edit is perfect and final ?
Before you start yelling at other people, please read the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and try to understand them. The most pertinent ones right here would be Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Just because you (think you) know something to be a fact, does't necessarily mean it's acceptable to WP. For that, it must be actually relevant to the understanding of the article subject, and it must be taken from an independent published source. Material published by the subject of the article itself always has to be treated with suspicion, because it tends to be self-serving. That's not just "my opinion". Those are the rules that every editor, including you and me, has to adhere to. You would do well to listen to more experienced editors when dealing with such matters. --Latebird 11:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
how do you come to the conclusion i'm yelling ? as to the verifiable bit, you verified that it was true what was written by me and yet you write " according to the station bolloxs it is Mongolia true digital ie SDfarkinI, as to verified, yes i know for a fact that it was uk built as i know the architects personally, as to SDI part, i am aware of the uk company that built this station, and yes they can verify it, as they built it, it is also on the website in mongolian. is that not independent enough ? buuut you can't help but re-edit. As to your comment what is interesting to the reader, again that ups to individuals, if you are a viewer with no tech background you may not care, but if you have a tech bachground you may care. i am aware from people over in Mongolia that the whole network will go digital in about 5years and C1 are technically ready, hence the comment about SDI. you're a bit cheeky and throwing sly/arrogant remarks will get you nowhere, ie my vanity comment by your good self. albeit you have little else to do in that dustbowl you feel powerful behind some poxy screen as a grand khan editor of WP on all subjects mongolian, big deal, who cares if you have edited for 3 months or 3 years, it's a blogger site and not accepted as a true dictionary/encyclopedia so you go prentend to be some major scholar and tell mummy your name is on the internet.... Don't take it so seriously !!!! concentrate on your studies and get a job that will serve you well in life..
Someone writing everything in bold face an using multiple exclamation marks in a row is usually considered yelling. Other than that, which part of independent published sources don't you understand? And if you really want to destroy your own reputation here very fast, just keep calling me names... --Latebird 13:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
USUALLY considered ??? by who ? you want to interact with humans and get off the internet every now and then.i just re-read what i wrote and can't see where i called you names other than the word cheeky since you called me vain. as to MY REPUTATION, i don't really give a monkeys. i don't have a reputation, do you ?
http://www.c1.mn/index.php?con=vw&id=2611 darling, here is your reference by the station as to who built it. you obviously have contacted C1 so you are aware that it is truly an SDI, pure digital, so let's use the correct terminology. So we'll include 5th world/BBC/Mediaplus and my beloved sons Architect company in the notes. all relevant or are you the police as to what is/no relevant as well ??
Hi! seems i have messed up a bit with moving Renchinlkhümbe to Ryönchinlkhümbe. The little Mongolian literature I have at home doesn't seem to agree on how the sum is spelled, the Hövsgöl aimgiin atlas of 1988 uses Рэнчинлхүмбэ, while the Hövsgöl aimgiin lavlah tol from 2001 uses Ренчинлхүмбэ. Most of the time, anyway. In any case, Ренчинлхүмбэ seems to yield more google hits, but the total hit count is quite low in both cases.
However, agreeing on the correct cyrillic spelling is only one part of the problem: What is the correct romanization of the cyrillic "е"? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Mongolian) says "ye", but somehow that doesn't seem to match with the pronounciation of "ес" (="nine").
As long as the Mongolians don't agree on the spelling, we can use either version here... The pronouncation of the "е" has no exact representation in the English alphabet, so we chose "ye" for simplicity. --Latebird 21:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mongolian Road Atlas (Монгол Улс Авто замын атлас) 2005: РЭНЧИНЛХΥМБЭ, administrative division map 2006 has the same toponime, aimag's website sum дарга (head) list gives the same name [4]Bogomolov.PL 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every 200th man is Genghis Khan's descendant?[edit]
Do you really believe it? What is your evidence that "the lineage is carried by likely male-line descendants of Genghis Khan and his close male relatives" and not, say, by descendants of a profligate soldier from his retinue? --Ghirla-трёп- 12:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what I believe. Ghengis' relatives are what the sources present as the most likely origin. Speculating otherwise would be Original Research (unless you have sources that point to such a "profligate soldier", of course). --Latebird 14:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should represent sensational headings, designed to attract more readers, as the ultimate scientific truth. You may have noticed that I don't advance alternative theories in main space, while you do. That makes a difference. --Ghirla-трёп- 04:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who is claiming "ultimate scientific truth"? The article is just citing sources ("The authors propose..."). If you consider those sources "alternative theories", what contradicting sources can you cite to support such an interpretation? --Latebird 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted my opinion in discussion on the Khovd aimag page, I think last corrections are not acceptable.
In Russian WP is very good article, may be it is possible to use some informations from Russian WP in English Wiki?
In Mongolian WP sum lists have tosgon names in slashes added, mostly mines or border crossing points, but it is not official... In several sources I've found that Khajuu-Ulaan (Хажуу-Улаан) settlement and mine is in the Dornogovi aimag, but it is in the Khentii aimag on the map Bogomolov.PL 08:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Yaan has already taken care of the immediate problem. I'll add some comments to the discussion there as well.
In general, translating information (or complete articles) from other language WPs is welcome. But a WP article by itself doesn't count as reference. If it doesn't indicate any other sources, then you need to apply your own judgement as to which details you expect to be reliable, and be prepared that other editors may contest the unsourced parts later. --Latebird 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but it is possible to find a lot of information in online sources, but in Mongolian. This Russian knows Mongolian (or Mongol speaks Russian) and made online data collection. Bogomolov.PL 10:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Online sources are fine, in any language (although english is preferred when we have a choice). Just that the information collected in WP is not considered autoritative without references to external sources. --Latebird 10:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject is poorly documented in English, I can't source the claim, but I would be grateful if you provided any competing claim: a family whose male-line descent from Genghis is confirmed by contemporary documents, generation by generation. I have studied the subject and I can't recall any. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My actual question goes deeper. Do the sources confirm that the "modern" Girays living in the UK and US are really connected to the Giray dynasty? The way the information is currently split between two unrelated paragraphs makes this quite unclear. Whether they are "the only ones" seems of less importance, and will be subject to change as more documentation gets found. --Latebird 16:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
or: 1,559,412 - (315 * 4,200) = 236,412 what with this territory?
2,630,000 - 1,000,000(UB)=1,630,000
1,630,000/315 = 5,175 it's OK
But CIA clames population 2,951,786 (July 2007 est.)[5], so
2,951,786 - 1,000,000(UB)=1,951,786
1,951,786/315 = 6,196 it's not OK
Mongolian demography is complex problem, so every time we need be accurate with numbers, I'm collecting Mongolia demography data and will compare national, UN and USBC estimations Bogomolov.PL 12:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check those figures, but only moved them over from the other article. If you find them inaccurate, as always don't hesitate to fix the problem. --Latebird 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me for an explanation, yet are removing the item without my response. That's pretty irrational. Genghis Khan and the Mongolian Empire with their brutish force, raped and pillaged villages across Eurasia. The villages were of groups of different races/ethnic groups. Thus, the Mongol and Khan bloodlines were spread across of wide spectrum of people and continued to spread further as human populations continued to move about the world. Not only does historical text reveal this about Khan and Mongol bloodline, but also does recent scientific findings. On example of this is American commedian Sara Silverman a person of Russian/Polish-Jewish ancestry whose fore mother was raped when Mongols ravaged her native village in Russia. Another example would be Siberians, racial categorized as White, many have considerable percentages of Asian ancestry traced back to that time period. I am undoing the change. [1]Relir 14:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, during the early Mongolian empire the influence of Nestorianism was quite high, or at least Rubruck (and maybe Carpini, too) gives that impression. Whether this is relevant for the Mongolia page is of course another question. Yaan 10:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If something along those lines gets added again, then it needs to be more specific about time frames and actual degree of penetration. As it was, the statement implied that all of Mongolia temporarily switched, which seems highly unrealistic. --Latebird 11:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! The reason I added it is because the organization itself uses it in their literature and on its insignia, probably as a way to reconnect with something distinctly Mongolian. I wasn't putting it on there as just something nice to have. Thanks for your followup! Chris 21:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about changing/creating these infoboxes in a way that both lifestock count and distance to UB/amiag capital can be included in the infobox? These are both statistics that seem to be associated with every serious description of any given aimag or sum, and they might also add some local flavor. I would do it myself, but I don't know how.
The distance to UB should be given in the articles for each aimag capital, and rather not in the aimag infoboxes.
Lifestock statistics could only be given as a very rough summary in the infobox. Wouldn't that be better placed in a seperate table under "Economy" in the text? Since the type of livestock varies by region anyway, that seems to make more sense. The figures as such can be taken directly from the statistical yearbook. --Latebird 18:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A friendly IP has questioned the number of passengers on the railway as added by yourself in this edit [6]. Any idea what the true number is? All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, dropped a few orders of magnitude when translating. Fixed now, thanks for the reminder. --Latebird 20:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I noticed that you made some fixes to my template based on naming conventions. As I'm planning to create a lot of pages (subs & templates) for the sums of Mongolia, I want to do it right so you (or whoever) doesn't have to do a lot of fixing. The existing pagelinks on Sums of Mongolia are all over the place in which system they use (or might not have a system). I read the naming conventions for Mongolian, but it still seems a little unclear. Do you have any tips or ideas? Aelfthrytha 22:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First advice: Don't rely on Sums of Mongolia (check the talk page about why I haven't bothered fixing it yet). The individual aimag articles should have the correct set of sum names in the correct transcription (and the Monglian spelling in case you want to cross check). Are you planning to create stubs for all the sums? I don't quite see the point of that, as it will not add any information to what we already have. Indeed they will hide the fact that there is no information, where red links would make that immediately obvious. The only disadvantage of red links is that duplicate names may slip through. But those can still be fixed once that articles with actual content are created for them. --Latebird 23:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be useful to have stubs because of the duplicate names (which I've been working on by creating disambig pages), but also because having something (anything) can make it easier for future editors to add to it. Even if it is a tiny stub, it will be properly categorized and linked (not to mention with aimag by aimag templates) so that it can be found and added to. One other argument I would make is that if all the stubs are put up now using the correct Roman alphabet, linked together with templates, and with redirects from alternative spellings, it would do a lot to head off these incorrect spellings which may crop up. Ideas? Aelfthrytha 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether stubs or red links are more likely to get information added is an age old debate, and won't be answered any time soon. For readers, the mini stubs are clearly more disappointing, because they cost them another useless click to go there and get nothing in return. But I see you specialize in the structural aspects of WP, so I won't keep you from having your kind of fun... ;) --Latebird 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, might as well let us structural/administrative/proto-bureaucrats have our fun -- I suppose there are worse ways to express this particular type of obsessive-compulsivity. ;) Aelfthrytha 01:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nice extra would be geo-coordinates for all of the sums. Who knows where to find those? --Latebird 11:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also, you might want to take a look at WikiProject Central Asia -- might be of interest to you in terms of community and teamwork on all kinds of related topics.
I watch some of the pages there, but they have rarely much of interest happening for me, and when I post something relating to Mongolia, it usually goes unanswered. There's a small handful of editors working on Mongolian topics, communicating among each other informally all the time. So far that has worked well enough. --Latebird 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think saying that Kolkhoz (or Landwirtschaftliche Produktionsgenossenschaft, or other similar organizations in other COMECON countries) and negdel are about the same is very meaningful. The underlying ideology probably is no different at all, but in practice, negdels seem to be much more oriented towards animal husbandry and much less towards farming, they span a much wider area, they were only introduced after earlier attempts on collectivization had failed miserably etc. The kolkhoz article seems to say nothing on organization into brigades (bags), about the typical size of a kolkhoz, how they were abolished, what social services were offered under the aegis of the kolkhoz rather than the state etc. I see that we'll need sources, sources, sources, plus some work, but IMHO negdel would really be an article worth having. Yaan 13:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there are significant differences in structure and historical development, by all means turn it into a seperate article. I wasn't aware that the LPGs also had a seperate article in en:WP. --Latebird 13:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedy delete tagged it -I created it about a year ago but I can't find the source. -there isn't any online source to back it up only a myriad of other sites copying from us. I think I was trying to fill in gaps in obscure topics recently after I joined wikipedia. Unfortunately there is frighteningly little info on practically anything in Mongolia - even entire states have no google hits yet there is an entire country out there but not documented on the internet. However incredible google may be it still isn't perfect!!! Thanks for showing respect in informing me anyway. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Journey in Southern Siberia is a great book, and should be transferred to WikiSource if it isn't already there. But it must be considered a primary source, because it just retells the stories without any analysis or background information (other than "I was there and this is what they told me"). Encyclopedic relevance is established through secondary sources, which interpret the primary ones and put them into a scientific context. I would really like some articles about Mongol mythology (Tengriism is a start), but we clearly need better material. Maybe someone will dig up some Mongolian sources (I'm learning, but it's taking time), assuming that not too much was destroyed during socialism. For the moment, I'm afraid that Esege Malan will share the fate of Solobung Yubin. --Latebird 09:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its great to see you have started the articles on the sums. I started doing this about a year ago and some very rude user told me I was wasting me time. Great idea with the navigation boxes - I have done the same thing for Tibet ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦"Expecting you"Contribs 09:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked more than one person not to do that over the years, but I couldn't stop Aelfthrytha... Those stubs add zero information to Wikipedia. Even worse, they hide that lack of information by eliminating the red links. At least he's trying to do it right, but in the end all that navigational infrastructure will really just remain a mostly empty shell. --Latebird 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you were trying to stop me, but I still politely disagree. In any case, could you take a look at the section of Sums of Mongolia for Selenge Aimag and also look at Selenge Province? The two lists are radically divergent. Aelfthrytha 03:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying, even if not very hard. As I said before, the lists in Sums of Mongolia are outdated and unreliable, use the ones in the aimag articles instead. --Latebird 09:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ministry of Health Yearbooks are here [7], population numbers are a little bit different from [8] (you need sign up like new user), coming from NSO. Sum list with livestock numbers (livestock Annual Census 2004) is on nso.mn. I will try verify sum lists in WP.
I've found database, but can not understand mongolian content [9] May be you can say me - how to surf thru it and is sum population numbers in it? Bogomolov.PL 13:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not latebird, but the data base seems to be about medical services. not so sure if emneleg means clinic or pharmacy, but it should be something like that. since they have a list of doctors (emch) attached, it's probably rather a clinic. The table contains telefon and registry numbers and (guessing) the number of people living in the area covered by the clinic (or pharmacy) (Үйлчлэх хүрээний хүн амын тоо). However, in some cases the number seems very large (too large by one or two orders of magnitude even). Plus, some sums might share one emneleg (maybe that's what they mean by sum dundyn (=middle,between) emneleg?) [10] has an (incomplete) list of sumyn emnelegs, but it would probably be a good idea to check if the numbers add up. [11] has a table for Bayankhongor aimag, but without a year (probably not 2000). xun am=people, ga=hectares, orkh=households. [12] has numbers for Zavkhan. Tov seems to have avtually made their statistical office do some work: [13], population data for beginning (?) of 2005 is in last column on page 90. Yaan 15:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Emneleg" means hospital. I have yet to figure out the rest of the site. But it's clearly a good idea to check how the medical data relate to the normal population figures. --Latebird 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I spend an hour in Emneleg DB analyzing, population data are close to I've posted in WP using statistic sources. Bayankhongor sum population data are 01.01.2006 (or 12.31.2005 if you like). I've posted this table in WP. Zavkhan sum areas have mistakes, so the balanse (sums sum and aimag area) is several thousand sq.km, I checked this areas with my sum map areas - there are significant differences (couple times even), so I'm waiting and looking for area data... Tov aimag data I've posted in WP, Tov statistic gays published sum population data since 1960-th, but I can not image how to use them...
Medical population sources: in the 2006 Yearbook p.6 UB population is 979,780 but on p.53 - 994,278 (so 1,000,000 was in January?), but NSO has 987,192. Where is truth?
Who knows? To my opinion is very important to have compatible data to be sure population figure changes are population changes.
I'm looking for Эрдэнэбулган sum in Arkhangai aimag. I can not find it on any maps... Google found that in 2001 was anthrax in it, livestock census 2004 gives 70,089 heads fot this sum. It dissolved? Bogomolov.PL 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[14] gives the impression that some more or less important facilities are located in that sum. Could it be that Erdenebulgan is a sum that contains the aimag capital? Yaan 09:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be that Bulgan and Erdenebulgan are really the same sum? Or do we have any document that mentions both names next to each other? With a quick (and incomplete) scan though the aimag site, I could only pages that mention one or the other. --Latebird 10:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be the aimag capital: "тус аймаг нийт 93.0 мянган хїн амтай. Аймгийн тєв болох Эрдэнэбулган суманд 18.0 мянган хїн оршин сууж ажиллаж амьдарч байна". So, Tsetserleg is khot name only, bags in the cities are like districts, so address consists of sum name and bag number. Bulgan is rural sum surroundin urban one, but малын тоо (livestock number) in Bulgan 42000, Erdenebulgan - 70000. Both are mentioned in the same table in annual livestock census 2004. And who is rural? Bogomolov.PL 10:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two more sum lists: UN codes [15], phone codes [16] where is written Tsetserleg city (Erdenebulgan) and Tsetserleg sum is different entry, Зоос Банк has branch #110 with address:"Governor’s Office Building, Erdenebulgan sum, Arkhangai province"[17]. So, Erdenebulgan is Tsetserleg city, OK. But where is Tsetserleg sum? Bogomolov.PL 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tsetserleg sum is Arkhangai's northernmost sum. At least according to the map on Arkhangai Province. 141.5.15.8 13:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I'm fool - I didn't pay any attantion on myself made map... Bogomolov.PL 14:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the city/erdenebulgan sum has almost twice the livestock as the surrounding bulgan sum? Maybe they are counting where the owners are registered, while tha animals still graze far out on the countryside in a different sum?
And does that mean that Erdenebulgan sum and Tsetserleg city cover the identical territory? Or is the city just part of the sum? --Latebird 14:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your questions. I have no 100% answers, but it looks like you mentioned. Several bags of Erdenebulgan sum are really city parts. I found Tsetserleg's college address (I remember it, it is just out of ger districts on UB direction paved road), this address is bag #something. According livestock numbers Erdenebulgan area is all nothern Bulgan sum part (with river dales - the most reach grazelands in the aimag), but Bulgan sum is mostly in the mountains, where is a lot of forest - less grazelands... Bogomolov.PL 15:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think in Moron, there are both khoroos and bags, but this might be a new thing. Moron and Khatgal have the same inflated livestock numbers. IMO there is no way to have thousands of cattle and yaks on the tosgon's 18 sqkm, except if they are hiding them somewhere.
In every sources availiable for me khoroos are in UB only. They were in several largest cities, but in the socialist time only. But 100,000 livestock in Moron - it shows Latebird has reason - owners registration decides... Really - livestock herds are still moving, even from one aimag to an other. And where count them? Of course the richest owners of thousands of livestock are not in any steppe, but in the city Bogomolov.PL 16:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the (recent!) address of an aquaintance, and it definitely read "Khuvsgul aimag, Murun sum, x-r horoo, y-r baishin, no. z". Maybe it's just a postal thing. Yaan 07:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google has addresses both with khoroo both with bag number in Moron. Somewhere in web was Mongolian laws database (many laws in English), Constitution article 57 is: "The territory of Mongolia shall be divided administratively into Aimags and a capital city; Aimags shall be subdivided into soums; Soums into Baghs; the capital city shall be divided into districts and districts into Horoos." Bogomolov.PL 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erdenebulgan sum has 29481 ha of grazelands, 22169 ha of forestland and 1735 ha settlements territory. Now it is problem to find a map source to correct my sum map. Bogomolov.PL 15:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a sum, then it shouldn't be in the respective table/navbox/category etc. Please list independent towns seperately in the aimag articles to avoid confusion. The same with Berkh, Khentii, btw, which seems to have an entirely incorrect article. --Latebird 10:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a medium-sized list of tribes that appear in the Secret History, Based on Haenisch's 1948 edition. But the list rather sketchy, i.e. few hints on which aub-clan belongs to which clan, which clan belongs to which tribe etc, and as said by no means complete yet. Should I post it or not? Yaan 07:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If at all possible, turn it into an article. That will hopefully help us to stop the pointless mini stubs. While this is not in itself a reliable source, it does indicate where the lists are taken from. Btw: I just realized that the deletion debate doesn't really distuinguish between tribes and clans, which it probably should. --Latebird 09:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, but still far from complete and needs further work. So far, I didn't really distinguish between tribes and clans either, but that can probably be done by someone else. Yaan 10:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, "Genghis Khan's genealogy"? Genghis descends from all those? --Latebird 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are all mentioned together with his ancestors, but maybe genealogy is the wrong word? Chinggis ancestors mentioned in the list are Dobun mergen, Alan khoa, Bodonchar, and of course his parents. Yaan 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogy would be a representation of his family tree. I've changed the subtitle accordingly. --Latebird 12:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Before Genghis Khan" isn't a good solution either. They are just mentioned before him, but most of them they existet later too, some even until today. For me, "Tribes and clans mentioned in Genghis Khans genealogy" would be better. Yaan 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be not to sort them according to where they are mentioned first at all. Otherwise you'll have to reshuffle the whole list each time a new source comes up. Remeber the other link had the origin of the Chonos in the 6th century. --Latebird 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Is there a way to get asterisks into a table? two entries in the new Khovsgol aimg population table deserve an asterisk rather than a footnote,but I don't know how to do it. Yaan 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, is that key missing on your keyboard? Or what exactly is the problem? On the other hand, what's wrong with using "Notes and References"? --Latebird 19:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Too simple to figure out. Yaan 10:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the standard method in WP. We should probably use footnotes (combined in "Notes and References"). --Latebird 07:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
