This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
This WikiProject's subject is featured in the Outline of Russia, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
I'm not sure there is a "controversy". What we have there seems to be a commonplace occurrence of an anonymous (and presumably new) editor making a bold edit and not understanding the reasons for them being reverted. From what I see, the anon's intent was quite good, but the way s/he went about fixing the problam wasn't entirely acceptable. There is nothing wrong with fixing duplication and non-sentences, but breaking established (and commonly accepted) format and especially removing sourced information solely for the sake of improving the flow isn't how it is supposed to be done. Hence the revert. I'll try to reconcile both sides later today or tomorrow and if any of the parties still have issues with the result, we can always discuss further improvements on that article's talk page. As for the question about the "consensus", I'm sure it can be unearthed with proper digging in this WikiProject's archives. Note, however, that nearly all articles about Russian populated places have indeed been using this format for many years without anyone really complaining, so, if nothing else, the fact that at least an implicit consensus exists should be fairly obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2015; 17:20 (UTC)
May I ask, and sorry for the incredible laziness here but, can you show me the consensus on where this is, as in a more specific spot than "in the WikiProject archives", if you can? Pyrotle…the "y" is silent, BTW. 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I can't; not without spending an obscene amount of time searching the said archives (I guess I, too, am lazy, not willing to waste time on proving something I don't even feel that strongly about). It may not even be in one place but in a series of conversations, anyway. In all, it's like asking to find one spot where consensus to, say, use infoboxes in articles about places was established :) The consistency of usage and lack of perpetual ongoing debates is already a demonstration of a consensus, even an implicit one, don't you think? At any rate, improvements need to be looked at holistically, and it seems to me that was not being done here, particularly not by the IP editor.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2015; 13:23 (UTC)
Belatedly sticking my head in here. The IP editor made two changes: removing the redundant mention of its being the administrative centre (appears in 2 consecutive paragraphs) and creating a complete sentence for the demographic data. Further, their sentence on the demographic data replaced the (templated) citation of 2 censuses with what is strictly speaking an OR statement that the population had declined, and cited only the later census. I think these two changes should be considered separately. I suspect - although I haven't done the research to support it, partly because I don't have a list of small Russian administrative centres in my head to look at - that what the project has established as standard is the sentence fragment and templated citation of 2 censuses for the population statement. The IP editor's change to that was stylistically desirable, but I agree that changing all of the thousands of Russian settlement articles to eliminate that sentence fragment, even if no interpretation was added but rather the sentence read something like "The population in 2002 was X, in 2010 Y", followed by the two templated refs in the reverse of their current order, would be a tremendous amount of work and probably isn't worth the bother. Plus there is the OR issue. The article has been subsequently changed again and currently does draw the conclusion, but there is an argument that we should not draw any conclusions. On the other hand, the elimination of the second statement in consecutive paragraphs within the lede that it is the administrative centre seems to me to be an obvious improvement. Please can someone from this project check other relatively short articles on administrative centres and see whether that repetition is a general occurrence, too? Unlike the sentence fragment, I believe that should be fixed immediately wherever it occurs, but it is possible that it arose in this article because it originally didn't have a separate lede but was later expanded. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Changing all the articles to eliminate this fragment is indeed a lot of work, but it's obviously an improvement and is slowly being done (I myself am usually making this fix in articles I touch; although I don't make a point to go through all the articles to make just this particular change, nor do I believe using this fragment is that big of a deal, especially in stubs). If someone else joins in trying to help, that's obviously welcome. What's not welcome, as you rightfully noticed, is deleting pieces which are sourced and turning them into an unsourced OR statement. That's one of the reasons the IP's edit was reverted.
On the repetition of the statement about the administrative center, the Belushya Guba article is a relatively well-developed one, one which several different people worked on. I don't believe this kind of repetition is present in many other articles. In stubs, the administrative center information is usually a part of the lede; it is also a part of the "administrative/municipal divisions" section when one is present (in which case the lede sentence is a summary of it; per WP:LEDE), and obviously included into the infobox. There is little reason to repeat this statement outside of these three locations, and I have no problem with removing the administrative center mention after the "main permanent settlement" part in this edit (even as I do not agree the rest of that edit is of any improvement).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 18, 2015; 15:56 (UTC)
So, people revert with the claim of a consensus for a particular style, but then they refuse to show where that consensus was ever reached. The notion that there would be a consensus not to write in proper sentences is weird enough, but then the very same person who claims this consensus exists says that removing the fragment is "obviously an improvement".
As for the population numbers, I'm startled to see it claimed that reporting that the population changed between two census estimates could be original research. Routine calculations do not count as original research, and comparing two numbers is about as routine as it gets. In any case, when I edited Astrakhan to remove seemingly unnecessary population estimates from three censuses - it seems to me that one is plenty in the lead -- that got reverted with the claim that it was of vital importance to show whether the population had changed or remained stable.
This kind of absurdly inconsistent nitpicking tells me that your problem is not with the edit but with the editor. I have observed time and time again that an uncontroversial simple improvement to an article by an anonymous editor often triggers aggressive reverting and hatred, while the very same edit made by someone with a username passes without comment.
And one other thing, I see the suggestion being made that the mere fact of something being sourced means that it cannot be removed from the article. Being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient reason to include something in the encyclopaedia. You might as well say that people shouldn't remove correctly spelled material. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of WP:BRD? Your second edit was inconsistent with it, and I reverted it, since you failed to address the comments. The third revert by a registered user was way off the policies, but reverting them as well would amount to starting a full-scale edit-war, and I went to their talk page instead. This has nothing to do with you bieing an IP and them being an account.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
BRD is an essay, not a guideline and certainly not a policy. You failed to understand the edit I had made, falsely claiming that there was "nothing redundant here". I addressed that: "Saying twice that it's the administrative centre is, indeed, redundant. Read edits more carefully before reverting." And now you falsely claim that I didn't. This kind of low level dishonesty is typical of those who don't like IP edits. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your talk page has enough evidence that you plainly do not understand and do not want to understand Wikipedia policies. Your reply above shows that one more policy you do not care about is WP:NPA. With such understanding of policies, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
It took me most of my day, but I have massively improved the Amber Room article as it's of high importance of the project scale. I'm going to nominate it for GA-status before the end of the week. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for working on it.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if one of you could check to see if there is anything out there for a person by the name of Yanuc Salkovski. I can't find anything out there for the guy and it's possible that it's a hoax, especially since I can't find anything for his club. The article has the club's name in Russian and a search brings up nothing in Russian language sources. I figure that before we officially deem it a hoax that we should get one of you guys to check for sources just to make sure that there's nothing out there. Tokyogirl79(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Taken care of, thanks for letting us know.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is very close to pass the GA-review, but the reviewer has requested the translation of this Russian source to improve the comprehensiveness of the article. I would highly appreciate if someone who can read Russian would translate this so the article can pass for GA-status. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is just too much. I can translate a paragraph confirming some particular point but not the whole thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe someone else from the project who can read Russian fluently can translate the whole thing? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much about reading Russian fluently as it is about the return on investment. The thing is indeed too long. If it is used to support specific points, it would be much more productive to run it through machine translation and then to pinpoint the specific, most helpful parts, which the participants of this project will then be more than happy to translate properly. Translating a long article only to have a few pieces of it used is rather wasteful, and the source isn't even that good to invest so much time into it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2015; 17:16 (UTC)
The article just passed the GA-review. Excellent job people. Next stop is peer review. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
As a general rule, which version of English should we use on articles regarding Russia? --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:ENGVAR, Wikipedia doesn't prefer one variation over another except in articles which are particularly tied to an English-speaking country. From my understanding, this means that in most cases, whichever version of English was written when the article was first created (or first had variation-specific language added to it) should be continued for consistency. I can imagine a few exceptions; for example, if the article was about the Russian Embassy in Australia, perhaps Australian English would be appropriate. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Slave labor and one thousand deaths in Norway, related to a national railway with a leadership that was not pushed out of office during the war
She is indeed known as Vaenga (btw we usually use WP:RUS in the absence of reliable sources so that a possible spelling for the town would be Vayenga). I think a DAB page might be the best solution.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The "Vaenga" spelling is the one used in several British texts about WWII, although "Vayenga" is the one used in our Severomorsk article. I'll have a go at a disambiguation page this evening. Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Y, you failed to notice that Elena is from Severomorsk. So whatever spelling for Vaenga, they should be both the same. -M.Altenmann >t 16:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily, I am not sure under what name she is primarily known in English. I do not have any strong opinions here, I am fine with any spelling.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Redirect now changed to disambiguation. Thank you both. Alansplodge (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, per wikipedia rules, we do not disambiguate only two entries. the correct way is what I did. Therefore I am revertiung the Vaenga page. By the way, you did not follow english wikipedia style guideline for disambig pages. -M.Altenmann >t 03:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)