User talk:Ezhiki

File:Crystal 128 package utilities.png	Toolbox	Autoblock finder Countitis facilitatis Edit summary usage stats Image usage List of blocked IPs & usernames Prefix Index Link Search Unwatched pages	Yo? Yo!
	Reference	Administrators' how-to guide Administrators' reading list Current surveys Dealing with vandalism Manual of style Policies and guidelines Vandalism in progress

Please note that I am usually not around during weekends and holidays. If you leave me a message any time after Friday afternoon U.S. Central Time, there is a good chance it will not be read and answered until Monday morning. I am sorry for any inconvenience this might cause.

---

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007

---

Leaning tower

Hi there, Ezhiki! I translated most of the article from the Itogi magazine (see footnote in the article). Their article started with:

"Есть на Урале таинственное сооружение, которое на протяжении столетий не дает покоя историкам и архитекторам. Речь идет о "падающей" Невьянской башне, возведенной в XVIII веке на деньги соратника Петра Великого - известного русского промышленника Акинфия Демидова. Изучить сооружение долгое время не представлялось возможным: в советские времена оно находилась на территории "почтового ящика", с которого лишь недавно был снят режим секретности".

Since the article was written in 2000 something, I figured that "the veil of secrecy" was lifted in the 2000s. As for my editing, you are quite right. I am now a father and don't sleep much :), so I don't really have time for Wikipedia now. I stop by occasionally, but don't and won't write much. But I'm still here! Keep up the good work! KNewman 18:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are still around and good luck with your fatherly duties! :) Thanks for clarifying the source, too. I can't say it helped much, but at least it's a good starting point. Best wishes,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates miscellany

Hey there!

re: this edit and the new member of the family-- {{km3 to mi3}}

• Some are missing still! (See adds at {{km2 to mi2}} or notes in the new one)
• Note in particular, I ran across 436,400 km²—which I moved into the ref block immediately after, but think someone might want to check that out, see if your template can be integrated into the project, and whatever. My attitude towards wiki these days sucks, but the use of yours at least would give those people a list of tagged articles to cross-list in the order of magnitude listing article.
• Note the other missing cube functions and check my work too! (I think I got it right, but it's best to have a sign off, imho!)

Cheers! And a great summer too! // FrankB 20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Fabartus! Pleasure to hear from you. {{Km3 to mi3}} looks fine to me. The only minor thing is that I would ask the MOS folks if "cu mi" would be their preferred abbreviation for "cubic mile". It might also be good to replace ³ with straight "³", unless you had reasons not to.

As for the "1 E+11 m²" format, I did not want to integrate it into the templates in order not to overload them with features that are hardly ever used (I came across that format before, but I don't see it widespread, and, frankly, I question whether it is even useful to readers at all). Every little thing added to templates increases their pre-expand size, and once the number of features reaches critical mass, that becomes an issue (witness a recently overhauled and very useful {{ft to m}}, where I literally had to fight my way through with the pre-expand sizes, which at some point reached 95 KB for straight conversions and twice that for dimensional conversions—a bit too much for a simple task of unit conversions, if you ask me). However, if someone in future would want to add that feature to the template(s), I ain't gonna argue :)

The remaining cube functions should be simple enough as well. I was planning on returning to the whole set, but, unfortunately, I am still kind of short on time; plus I got distracted by the projects such as creating {{dec to frac}} and subsequent {{height}} overhaul. Fret not, I will be back eventually :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

As you can see here, I'm really not here much these daze!

• As for ³ with straight "³", I don't usually bother looking for an (Java editing) insert code as they are all so hard to read if I know how to code it direct... hence didn't look. Trivial either way, imho.

With preexpand size as the topic, these much need converted to WP:DPP formatting which will cut that significantly... IIRC, the way the preprocessing works now, using {{km2 to mi2}} with my expanded list of others, sucks in all of them!. Suggest one Doc page can service the whole family. See page sensing in {{indent family usage}}, and the various cat listing templates ({{catlist}}, {{catlst}}, etc. here will do!)... but testing PAGENAME in ifeq... test is way to combine and keep things straight. The Meta M:DPP page had some tips for such combined pages... keeping that same here proved impossible.... that's gone too! Sigh!

• Nice to touch base... gotta go dig in the yard. Cheers! // FrankB 21:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Frank! As far as one doc page for the whole family idea goes, that, unfortunately, isn't going to work too well now. The reason is that no matter how I tried keeping these templates consistent, some of them slowly grow features that others lack :) Hopefully when that's done, the templates could be re-edited in a uniform fashion. Until then, a separate doc page per template would have to suffice (yeah, I know, we don't even have that for most of the templates now). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Regarding your comment in this Murali edit summary. You should review WP:DAB, especially the relevant statement: "In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title". The dab page is not the appropriate place for redlinks, if you want to list redlinks, you should create an index page for your entries. Dreadstar † 21:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! My restoration of red links on that dab page was done in accordance with WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks, which states that "[l]inks to non-existent articles ('redlinks') may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." Being the person who added the red links on these two locations in the first place, I am very confident that encyclopedia articles can be written about them. Furthermore, the links are a part of a large project dealing with Russian geographic locations. While they are red at the moment, they produce backlinks which are heavily relied upon when sorting and categorizing the places with identical names (there are quite a few such places in Russia). I would thus kindly ask you to re-instate the links due to them being useful. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) ∙ (yo?); 21:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm pretty familiar with DABs, I'm part of the dab project and I've done thousands of them. If you're going to write articles, then great! But don't add links that might have articles "someday" by "someone". Your other interpretation of the usage of DAB redlinks is incorrect, you are confusing a DAB page with an "index" page. Dreadstar † 21:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, you added piped links to the dab page, which is clearly against WP:DAB. Dreadstar † 22:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I am sorry, but I find your interpretation of MOSDAB rather curious. Let me illustrate by going step by step through your edit of Murali. I will, of course, gladly hear out any counter-arguments you might have, preferrably backed up with references to appropriate sections of DAB and MOSDAB. I prefer dealing with straight facts instead of someone's opinion. Hopefully, this analysis will correct either your or my misunderstanding of certain MOSDAB points. So.

Before you or me started cleaning up Murali, the page contained five sections (HINDI, Cricketers, Actors, Other people, and Places), with the Actors section being the only one containing more than two items. Let's now see what you did:

1. removed "nethra" dictdef. Done in full accordance with MOSDAB, which advises to put a link to Wiktionary for any dictionary definitions. Since Wiktionary does not contain an entry for either "murali" or "nethra", the entry was simply excluded. No argument here.
2. removed red-linked actors from the Actors section, deleted Other people section and Places section. This, I believe, was a part of your efforts to get the dab page rid of red links in accordance to your understanding of disambiguation page guidelines. I'll comment on this later below.
3. unpiped the remaining entries. Done in full accordance with MOSDAB; no argument.

At this point the page was reduced to just three sections. In my view, however, the job was still not done well. So, what I did (and I am not looking at the red links issue yet) was to organize the page in a more logical manner, by grouping all people into the People section, all places into the Places section, and everything else into the Other section. This way when someone writes an article on, say Vladimir Murali, mayor of one of the Russian towns, the entry would be added to the People section instead of fragmenting the dab even further and creating a Mayors section with one entry. Why you reverted that particular improvement in organization of mine is beyond me, so I would, naturally, appreciate an explanation. Same goes for the HINDI section—why do you think it should remain there under this loosely applicable name and in all caps? Then, "Murali (tamil actor)" is in fact a redirect to "Murali (actor)"—something I corrected and you, again, reverted. I can believe that a redirect for some reason unknown to me would be preferrable here, but "tamil" is simply an incorrect spelling (the word should be capitalized)! All this, and I have not even mentioned that human names are subject to a MOSDAB section of their own (WP:MOSDAB#Given names or surnames), according to which neither of us formatted the names on the Murali disambiguation page correctly! Per MOSDAB, "[f]or short lists of [persons who happen to have the same surname or given name], new sections of Persons with the surname Title and Persons with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list".

Now, let's return to the issue of red links. From what I understood from your comments above, your stance on them is simple: no red links at all are allowed on disambiguation pages and if such links are needed, then a set index article should be created. To back that up, you quoted the WP:DAB provision, which states that "...disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title" (underlining is mine). That's correct, of course, but I am afraid you are taking this too literally. That particular sentence describes the general intent and purpose of disambiguation pages but it does not cover exceptions, yet alone explicitly prohibits red links altogether. Suffice it to say, if red links were indeed prohibited from disambiguation pages, then this section of MOSDAB would have not even existed! Note that the section in question deals directly with disambiguation pages, and with disambiguation pages alone (the section is, after all, located in the disambiguation pages manual of style, in the section dealing with individual entries of disambiguation pages, in the subsection dealing with specific entries types of disambiguation pages); it does not even mention set index articles, which are only mentioned several sections below... in the Exceptions section. In other words, just like the Redlinks sections says, redlinks are absolutely fine on disambiguation pages as long as an article will be written on the subject. On my part, I assure you that I would never add a red link to a disambiguation page just to have it sit there. All of the placenames added by me are there for a reason and I fully intend to write articles on each and every one of them (unless, of course, someone beats me to it). Note, however, that with 160,000+ places in Russia and very few people working on the topic, it takes time to get to some of the entries. They are still immensely useful in that they help organize the project workflow and avoid unnecessary cleanup and maintenance later.

In addition, you do not seem to have read (not carefully, anyway) even the section on set index articles itself. What you are suggesting is that since the entries I added belong to one category (places), then a separate set index article should be created (something along the lines of "Places called Murali" or somesuch, I assume). While it might be a possible solution in theory, there are numerous problems with Murali in particular:

1. there are only two entries, so, if nothing else, creating a separate index article for them is just silly;
2. I am not aware of any other cases where places with identical names are grouped into a set index article (if you can enlighten me on this point, by all means do so). In fact, the mere existence of {{geodis}} tag suggests that places are a part of disambiguation structure;
3. creating a set index article in this case violates the provision of MOSDAB#Set index articles stating that "...the set index article exception was designed to be narrow: for pages that contains links to articles about different topics, please follow this style guide for disambiguation pages" (underlining is mine). Murali is a page about different topics—it covers people, places, and one other concept, so it must follow the MOSDAB, which, again, returns us to that style guide's "Redlinks" section. No matter how you look at it, red links are fine.

Finally, regarding your note that I "added piped links to the dab page, which is clearly against WP:DAB". I assume you refer to the [[Tatarstan|Republic of Tatarstan]] part (which, at any rate, is one piped link, not links). If you kindly take time to familiarize yourself with WP:MOSDAB#Piping, you'd see that the "do not pipe the name" rule only refers to the links of "articles being listed". Were I to use something like [[Murali, Kaybitsky District, Republic of Tatarstan|Murali]], that would have been incorrect. What I did, however, was to pipe one blue link in the definition. Why? You probably do not know, but Russia is divided into several types of federal subjects, which include republics, oblasts, krais, and a few other types. The names of all federal subjects usually contain the qualifier of what type that subject is (e.g., Primorsky Krai is a krai), but republics officially have a long name and a short name. In case with Tatarstan, "Tatarstan" is the short name, while the "Republic of Tatarstan" is the full name. When it comes to disambiguation pages, it is not uncommon when a place called "XXX" exists in several federal subjects (say, in Tatarstan and in Primorsky Krai). So, in such cases republics are usually listed by their long names for consistency purposes (because doing otherwise would be a bit confusing for an uninformed reader—if "Primorsky Krai" is a krai, then what is "Tatarstan"?). Granted, it makes very little difference on the Murali page because both entries are for Tatarstan, but it is often rather important in other cases. In my view, this is a great example of WP:MOSDAB#Break rules, although whether the rule is even broken in this case is a subject of interpretation.

I think this about covers it. I apologize if my comments sounded a bit harsh: my intent is to either have you review your practices (since I see so much wrong with them) or to have my understanding of the rules corrected. Either outcome furthers the improvement of Wikipedia, so there can be no losers :) Please take your time when composing your response. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your long, very detailed and kindly phrased response; I'll have to set aside some time to review it in detail, but from what my brief scan of the post's contents revealed, there are some elements I agree with and some that I don't. I'm always eager to learn new things about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I must disagree with the edit you performed the links under 'places' contain multiple wikilinks (the the second entry contains two different redlinked entries in addition to the piped third link - that's three in one entry, which stretches the exceptions to WP:DAB quite a bit, IMHO.) Taking into consideration that problematic link, the one above it adds to the overall disconnect between the guideline and the implementation on that DAB page. Perhaps you pointed this out in your post, but I'll need some time to go through it in detail. Not to be rude, but mostly to be funny, if you had put as much effort into writing the articles behind those redlinks, our discussion about that particular page would be moot. Although I do appreciate and recognize your magnificent effort to educate me. I really do appreciate that! Personally, I don't believe dab pages should contain redlinks for anything except for articles being currently written, but naturally, I will abide by consensus on that issue. I won't continue contesting your additions of redlinks to the Murali dab page, and have taken it off my watchlist. Dreadstar † 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, take all the time you need. There was, however, no need to abandon Murali completely—it was not my intention to scare you off with a page-long discussions of disambiguation practices :) And you are, of course, completely correct about me putting this much effort into my response. From my prior experience, however, I found that editors who have an opinion about how exactly dab pages should be formatted (sometimes correct, sometimes not) are best dealt with as soon as problems start to arise. I could have, of course, simply written two marginal sub-stubs on both locations and closed the issue, but that would not have resolved anything if you continued with the rest of the dab pages in the same manner. As I said above, there are 160,000 inhabited localities in Russia, quite a bit with identical names, and while I never add entries to dab pages unless I need them for cross-linking and/or reference somewhere else, there are still quite a few that are added. I much prefer to work systematically, and having write mini-stubs just to put a fire on a particular dab page is very distracting and reduces the efficiency of the workflow. So, instead of writing mini-stubs (which I sincerely hate) to plug a hole, I prefer discussions of policies and guidelines in general. It does save time in the long run, even if I have to spend an hour to write a response such as one above :)

Now, to address your concern regarding the number of links in the Places section which I re-added. The first one (Murali in Arsky District) is formatted in full accordance with MOSDAB (the main entry is red, so one blue link is added in the description). The second one (Murali in Kaybitsky District) is indeed in violation, but I did format it that way on purpose, not because of my unfamiliarity with the basic MOSDAB principles. The reasons for that seemingly strange approach are logic and logistics. Since the first entry links to the district, it is logical that the second entry should link to the district as well. However, since the district article does not yet exist, the MOSDAB requirement stating that every dab entry must have one blue link is not fulfilled. So, the next item in the hierarchy (the Republic of Tatarstan) is wikilinked. From the logistics point of view, it is easier to redlink the district and bluelink the republic, instead of just bluelinking the republic and unlinking the district. When the article about the district is written, it would be so much easier for me or for cleanup patrol to spot two blue links in the definition and remove the extra one as opposed to noticing that the district should have been linked to instead of the republic. I believe this convenience is something that can be justified by the "break rules" clause of MOSDAB, but I certainly would not press this point too hard if someone took offense with this practice of mine. This, as opposed to removing red links altogether, is not a big deal at all. If you feel I pushed the dab conventions too far with this, feel free to unlink the district.

Anyway, I'll stop here for now. As a sign of good faith on my part, I will not edit Murali until I hear your response and we have a chance to come to mutual understanding. My intention is not to push my point of view regarding a particular disambiguation practice (no matter how right I feel I am) on you or anyone else, or to drive people away from the dab pages I work with (I don't own them), but to discuss it with disagreeing parties and hopefully come to a solution which suits both sides, hopefully learning something new in the process. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

Hope i could get your support here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#The_new_image

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#The_new_image

Because i belive that you will agree with me that having the Normandi battle picture in the size of two, and not having a picture of the Stalingrad battle in a world war two image is absurd. M.V.E.i. 11:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Lovozero

Yehp, I noticed that it wasn't too suitable. I meant to ask you last night before I turned off the computer though if it would be a good idea to create some sort of shorter template for these types of villages as there seems to be a number of coats for them and maps would be good to add, too, if possible. -Yupik 12:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This was actually discussed before, and the consensus was that having such an infobox at this point would be premature. There are not that many articles about Russian rural localities yet, and those which exist are so short that any kind of infobox would easily overwhelm them. A map and a coat of arms can always be added to the articles directly, and considering the recent improvement of the coordinates service (have you tried clicking on that globe next to the coordinates of any place yet? :)) even having a map is no longer that important. Let me know if this does not answer your question. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Talk:Moskovskaya

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Talk:Moskovskaya, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Talk:Moskovskaya is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Talk:Moskovskaya, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 15:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The page was tagged correctly and is now deleted.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured list removal

So, it's all my fault now? :P Left my comments on talk, but I have to say that article is cursed :) Renata 17:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, who else can I blame? :) Regarding your comment, though: I think folks are not advocating to remove all the narrative from the list but rather outsource it to other places (to which links will be provided from within the list). So, if the difference between rural settlements and rural locilities puzzles you, you'd still be able to find the information you need by following the links. Anyway, I, for one, think keeping the narrative in is a good idea (a remarkable change in my position from back when you suggested more narrative in the first place, I know :)), not in a small part because there are currently no good places to outsource it to (I'd have to write a dozen new articles first, which I am planning to do eventually, but just not now). In any case, thanks for your comment! If you could keep an eye on the discussion until it closes, I'd much appreciate it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Petrozavodsk -article

Hey there :) I added a infobox to Petrozavodsk -article a long time ago. sorry if i am stupid, but not sure who deleted it. i'm sure the article will be better with infobox. don't you agree? Ilyushka88 18:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-instated it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Move

Hi! A link to "History of the adiministrative division of Russia" somewhere in Wikipedia appeared misleading to me (I expected to find something more recent there by default), and I was planning to start a separate article about the Soviet subdivisions at some point, as this would be a vast topic and I am not very interested in the 19th century to make the story continuous, but if you think that all such information should be there, feel free to rename the article back. Are you going to expand it further?

BTW, I have a problem with the 2002 census. If I try to calculate the population on the territory of Vyborgsky District, Priozersky District, Vsevolozhsky District, Kurortny District (including all the settlements subordinate directly to the oblast), do I have to add the population of Vyborg, Vsevolozhsk, Priozersk, Sertolovo etc. to them?Colchicum 18:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was planning to expand that article, but as of now I am still in the "planning to" phase, unfortunately... How about organizing these articles by centuries? What I mean is that we'll have one umbrella article ("History of administrative divisions of Russia") providing a brief summary covering all history (from the 17th century, or even earlier if anyone has the data, through present), which would link to a set of "Administrative divisions of Russia in ## century" articles, which, in turn, would link to composition lists for the periods of stability (1710–1713, for example). This way readers could drill down to the amount of detail they need, instead of being overwhelmed by a one huge article covering the 17th through 21st centuries containing a multitude of links to year-specific lists.

As for the 2002 Census, the populations of cities and towns under jurisdiction of federal subjects are never included into the totals of the administrative districts, but the populations of towns under jurisdiction of these districts are included (so, for example, the population count of Vyborgsky District would not include Vyborg itself, because it is an oblast-level town, but it would include Kamennogorsk, Primorsk, Svetogorsk, and Vysotsk, because these are the district-level towns). If you need to know which city/town is on which level, you can use administrative divisions of Leningrad Oblast. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cherepovets

I actually like the result. Thanks. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Kozhuun

Sorry about misinterwiked kozhuun. Should be correct now, please check it. Regards, ABX 15:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is now. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Zelenograd

Вот какой ответ я получил при обращении в нашу префектуру [1](13.08.2007 Потапов Дмитрий Александрович, рег. No: ГК-529/7):

Географический и административный статус Зеленограда определяется Законом города Москвы от 5 июля 1995 года № 13-47 «о территориальном делении города Москвы». В соответствии с этим законом географический статус Зеленограда определен следующим образом - это город Зеленоград, входящий в состав территории города Москвы. По этому же Закону с точки зрения административного деления г. Москвы и осуществления управленческих функций на его территории – Зеленоград это один из десяти административных округов г. Москвы. Поэтому понятия «город Зеленоград» и «Зеленоградский административный округ» тождественные и, соответственно, никаких юридических связей между этими понятиями не существует.

Насколько я понимаю такой ответ (с дополнительной информацией): Зеленоград - это город Зеленогарад территориально, но ЗеоАО - административно. Поэтому вопрос:

• (а) - на что-же ориентироваться в первую очередь при названии статьи,
• (б) как это ситуацию лучше описать, в русской версии я написал так: Зеленоград — город в России,... Административно, вместе с подчинёнными ему населёнными пунктами..., входит в состав города Москвы как Зеленоградский административный округ (ЗелАО).

Alex Spade 13:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Спасибо, что держите в курсе дела. С учётом текста приведённого закона, полагаю, можно утверждать что Зеленоград является городом в составе города Москвы (который, помимо Зеленограда, включает в себя также ряд посёлков и деревень, а также территорию собственно Москвы). Статью при этом можно оставить под заголовком "Зеленоград" (поскольку он не является неправильным, но является наиболее распространённым), а подробно ситуацию можно объяснить как в вашем пункте (б). "ЗелАО" при этом будет редиректом. Такое решение, во всяком случае, выглядит наиболее логично для английской Википедии (с учётом существующих policies and guidelines). Будет на этом считать вопрос закрытым? Или в русской Википедии у кого-то ещё есть вопросы?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of the article

Hi, we thought of you in a discussion about the best name of the article Makhmut Gareev (how I created it) or Makhmut Gareyev (where Untifler moved it). Could you take a look at User talk:Untifler#Makhmut Gareev and comment there? Thx, --Irpen 01:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied at User talk:Untifler#Makhmut Gareev. Thanks for asking!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

A discussion is held in the Axis powers of World War II article talk page. I oppose USSR being in the Controversial cases of relations with the Axis section, while some others support it being in the section. Feel free to state your personal opinion here. M.V.E.i. 18:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

{{Cm to in}}

Ezhiki,

Create {{cm to ft in}} instead, yep, that's more logical. The thought had passed through my head but how do you view the relative merits of the proliferation of single-purpose templates verses the increasing of the flexibility of a multi-purpose one, like {{Convert}}? {{Convert}} does everything that those templates do (except deal with both feet & inches, but that could ... and should ... be fixed). Of course, this is a case where we can have our cake & eat it too but is it optimal to have one big template which does it all and have a bunch of little ones which do their little bit? Too late at night for such questions, I'm catching some "shut-eye" ... if, in the meantime some well-meaning soul reverts me and creates the said alternative template, I'm not about to kick up a stink (such a soul might want to look at Breaux Greer‎ & Asafa Powell). See ya round. Jɪmp 18:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your question about {{Convert}} is the very same one I was asking when I started creating single-purpose templates and suddenly discovered someone else had already attempted to create a universal one. As it turned out, some folks dislike {{Convert}}, so I was assured single-purpose templates would find their audience. In the end, it is a matter of taste and preference—if someone likes {{Convert}}, they should by all means continue using it. Same goes for single-purpose conversion templates folks. And as long as we have these two camps of users, it makes all the sense to keep single-purpose templates what they are—as specialized as possible. How that affects the big picture, however, I don't know, I'm just a humble tool-maker :)

In addition to this, my point of view is that while both {{Convert}} and single-purpose templates (in their simplest form) basically do the same job, the latter have a vast potential for growth. Take a look at {{ft to m}}, for example. I don't doubt {{Convert}} can be enhanced to include all the same features, but in the end it will make this (at this point rather robust) template unwieldy and overbloated, which is hardly a positive outcome. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Speaking of Breaux Greer‎ & Asafa Powell, may I suggest {{Height}} and {{Weight}} (the latter, however, first needs to be upgraded in the image of {{Height}})?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Weather

Any thoughts about Weather Infobox? Do you like it? --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the general idea is good (temperature information is encyclopedic and useful), but I, too, don't care much about this particular implementation. Peacock colors aside, the template is so wide (regardless of whether it is hidden by default) that it would more often than not clash with infoboxes and images. In Irkutsk in particular, there is no way to fix this situation unless the "Geography and climate" section is expanded (more than twice) or moved down (which isn't desirable either), or if the infobox is removed. I don't really know if there is a good solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there somewhere in the WP:RUSSIA or anywhere else that gives instruction as to the structure of an article about a Russian city? The reason I ask is because WP:CITY used to have an article structure where the geography and/or climate section was much lower in the article. History was always the first section after the introduction. WP:CITY'S article structure somehow morphed into the US and UK article structures. In anycase, in the example given of Irkutsk and in one that I found —Kaliningrad, it seems odd to have the geography section before the history section. In the Kaliningrad article, I took the liberty of moving the geography section to the third section and it looks much better.—MJCdetroit 18:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't have such guidelines (something that needs to be fixed, I guess, since, as you rightfully pointed, WP:CITY is becoming increasingly unsuitable for non-US/UK cities). In my personal opinion, however, it seems more logical to put the geography (but not necessarily climate) section earlier in the article. An article about the place should first establish what the place is (in the lead), where it is located (geography), and only then what its history is, followed by everything else (economy, demographics, etc.).

Anyway, in the absence of guidelines, I don't mind moving the Geography section in Irkutsk for now, since it'll at least help get rid of the template jam, but I think Ghirla's point was more generic than that—moving sections around may not always be a possible solution. If an article has an infobox and an abundance of pictures, the weather infobox is very likely to cause disruption somewhere. Perhaps if it could be modified so its maximum width is equal to the page width minus the width of a standard infobox minus some padding, that would take care of the problem? That'll probably mean decreasing the font size, but in the end the template might turn out looking better than it does now. Of course, until it's tried, it is hard to tell for sure.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You do bring up a good point that the geography and the climate do not always have to be "lumped" together. Separate if needed.

If you feel that the WP:CITY is becoming unsuitable for non-US/UK commonwealth cities, please bring this up at WP:CITY, so that it can be corrected. Please try to give examples of what you mean as well. WP:CITY is supposed to be the main project for all settlements and any suggestions that you would have to improve it, I would support. CHeers, MJCdetroit 19:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to bring it up, but I have to budget my Wikipedia time recently, and most of the days I barely manage to comb through my watchlist. I'll certainly put this on my to-do list, but with the latter already approaching six pages, I may not get to it for quite a while. Sorry!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It is strange, because with my Firefox the template doesn't clash with anything, and its width is fairly decent even with the 800 by 600 resolution. I can never be sure as to another browser or font size, but I thought that with <br clear=all> this potential problem is solved. At any rate, Template talk:Infobox Weather is a better place to ask questions about the layout. Colchicum 20:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, <br clear=all> moves the template down until both margins are clear. In case of Irkutsk, the weather infobox is moved down to where the city infobox ends. Still, removing <br clear=all> here does not solve the problem—as the weather infobox would overlap the city infobox, it is moved down to the area of clear margins anyway, thus creating a large amount of white space. The problem exists in both IE and Opera; I did not check how it is in Firefox.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, I would worry about an overlap, but this problem doesn't seem too serious and requiring urgent intervention. We had better ask for a solution at the template talk page. Colchicum 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to a discussion on the Russians talk page

Hello. I started a discussion on the Russians article talk page. Due to the fact that people as i see havent visited it for a long time, every opinion is important and will get attention. The discussion is important for the article. You can find the discussion here:-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Birobidzhan Jewish National University/Temp

Hello Ezhiki. I was wondering if you would have any comments on, or additional edits to Birobidzhan Jewish National University/Temp. Thanks and take care. Culturalrevival 15:09, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's on a shorter side, but perfectly acceptable for a stub. You might want to add the name in Russian and Yiddish/Hebrew and possibly collect all the external links in the "External links" section, but other than that it seems to be OK. Are you planning on expanding it? Either way, keep up the good work! If you have any questions you think I can answer, I'd be happy to help. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossacks discussion

There's an argument in the Kuban Cossacks article talk page. Feel free to state your opinion here. M.V.E.i. 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, from what I see, this argument is just a load of original research, personal beliefs, and opinionated finger-pointing. What you need first and foremost is references, otherwise this argument is rather empty and pointless. As the subject, unfortunately, lies beyond my area of expertise, I cannot add any useful comments or to steer the discussion to the right direction.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway :-) M.V.E.i. 22:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV note

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Calques from German. Since you are involved in the similar Category:Russian loanwords, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Jreferee t/c 02:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ft2 to m2

Ezhiki,

I didn't realise I was making the template eight times it's orignial size. I'll look into how I can trim that down. I would, however, like to keep those features I'd added. Perhaps if reduced versions of {{ordomag}}, {{rnd}} & {{precision/x}} were used this would help (we probably don't need ranges in the order of 10^±60). There may be other ways to optimise the code I'm overlooking, any ideas? By the way how do you check a template's pre-expand size?

Jɪmp 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a better way to check a template's pre-expand size, but I usually just hit "Random page" and edit whatever comes up by blanking the contents and replacing them with one instance of the template being checked. Then I hit "show preview" and look at the html code of the page; the pre-expand size is there in the comments block (just do an inline search for "pre-expand").

As for trimming down the template, one way to do it effectively is to make sure that irrelevant parts of the conditionals being tested are not expanded. I had a problem with pre-expand size when working on {{ft to m}}, and I found this piece of advice very helpful. That's how {{ft to m}}'s pre-expand problem was solved without having to sacrifice any features (great job on {{ft2 to m2}}'s feature set, by the way! It's great to see you started solving the significant figures problem—the feature has been requested on numerous occasions before). I wish I had time to offer more substantial help with this, but I've been quite short on time during the last several months. Anyway, let me know if there is anything I can help with, but otherwise I trust you'll manage just fine :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints. I'll see what can be done. I do still have a question, though. Where do you find the html code of a page? Jɪmp 03:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's a browser feature, not Wikipedia's :) In IE/Opera, select View→Source. It's a similar arrangement in Firefox or any other browser.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

lets not start an editwar because of this population numbers

First I thought the uncited population claim from 1989 isn't notable. After you reverted me I looked for a reference and found one wich covers both(2002 and 1989). Now you changed it again and I had to revert you. Why ? :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan En (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, be positive :) It's not an edit war, it's an improvement process. I do, however, admit that I forgot that the particular spreadsheet being referenced also contains the 1989 data (because the original data sheets in Russian I am used to working with only contain the 2002 data), so you were correct to move the reference back. As for the 1989 Census being "unnotable", that is absolutely not the case. The 1989 Census was the last one done in the Soviet Union, and, coupled with the 2002 Census (which was the first one conducted in the Russian Federation after the break-up of the USSR), it provides a very good picture of the population trends over this important period in history. It is citable, too; I just did not have access to my bookmarks at the time I made the edit. If you need the 1989 Census numbers referenced elsewhere, let me know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, you are right and it is indeed notable. -- Stan _talk 13:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your excellent conversion templates

In brief -- can use another two:

ref: Template:Infobox Luxembourg commune(edit talk links history) and it's subtemplates

See this and prior two edits and this discussion under '3'...

1. With your familiarity with 'comma' behavior and your own templates, could you find the time to come up with a new pair that will do per capita numbers versus area... the tricky part would be the display output string as the areas are in the denominator, not the numerator.
2. Something like {{Percap per km2 to mi2}} and Template:Percap/(mi2 to km2) [or 'Pop/(km2 to mi2)' perhaps?] or whatever names makes best sense to you for a name.
3. The Template:Luxembourg_commune_density is a sub-template of Luxembourg (city) type articles (

{{Infobox Luxembourg commune}}) and municipalities called communes (several hundred articles in the aggregate) all of which use the same template set. I installed conversions in all the other subtemplates yesterday, and they're apparently acceptable to the template originator, (topic points 1 and 2 of that same talk), with a little difference of opinion on the legend display (colors listed)--which is obviously NBD.

1. Inasmuch as all municipality, district, sub-national unit articles ususally have population data, having a syntax identical, similarly named pair of conversion templates for such compliant with MOS is something that would be quite useful.

Also, as I recall the internal workings of these, please opine on whether this following concept (new idea!) would work on the whole set... adding an new parameter 'WA' which if defined (TRUE) evaluates the same as pipe wiki=yes and pipe abbr=yes ... which seems the most common modes in my sprinkling these around. The benefit would be less clutter within the line where used... and is essentially a typing aid, so a time saver for editors.

Cheers and thanks! // FrankB 17:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Frank! Are {{pop density km2 to mi2}} and {{pop density mi2 to km2}} something that could be adopted for your needs fairly easily? I wasn't the one who wrote them, but they provide all the same usual capabilities other single-purpose conversion templates do.

As for the WA parameter, adding it would not be terribly difficult (albeit tedious), but I am not really sure if it'd be worth it. In a situation like yours, I would normally just copy "wiki=yes, abbr=yes" to clipboard and paste it when typing :) I just don't think that increasing pre-expand size (however slightly) of a heavily-used template is justified if one only wants to save a few keystrokes. Decluttering, on the other hand, is a valid point, but "WA", unlike "wiki=yes, abbr=yes" is not really intuitive and may put editors not yet familiar with the template off. What do you think?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my clipboard is usually holding (likely {{km2 to mi| ) at the time of use for other conversion needs in said changes... usually when an article needs one, needs more than one! The two cited, are just what's needed though. Don't be so concerned about a few dozens of bytes for preprocessor expansion... a 2 MEG ceiling is A LOT of headroom! There aren't more than a dozen or so calls to any one of these per article—usually only a handful. 12 X 256 (hypothetical extra bytes) is still only .003 MEG. Thanks, but the time and ease savings seem good thoughts to me. Cheers! // FrankB 18:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't have anything against pushing the pre-expand size a little for convenience sake, but these templates seem to be used more and more in all kinds of places. Multiply a few bytes by a thousand calls, and the problem becomes a lot more pronounced (maybe not for you and me, but definitely for Wikipedia's servers). Plus, while a 2 meg ceiling is a lot of headroom, when a page is close to that ceiling, even I on my super-fast connection can feel how much more slowly it loads. Check out Mikhail Gorbachev, for example. The pre-expand is "only" 379K, but you can already feel the lag (especially at times when Wikipedia server's are strained). Imagine how it is to folks sitting on measly 384K DSL connections!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhhh--- consider: First of all, pages are cached AGGRESSIVELY, which means loading issues you are describing is acting for such displays because it takes a while to process and transfer the lot of bytes involved (Per Brion Vibber) ...
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Secondly, the server loading when composting (Preprocessing) the page occurs but once per page, and that's when the 2 MEG applies, and that ceiling is solely for the templates, ...
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.there is another HUGE ceiling for the rest of the page content (other stream data-- i.e. the 'free text' if you will, the templates are expanded into)...
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Data streams are further cached along all the intermediate internet paths to your IP, and so telephone and DSL connections will likely not even see a lag (they're just too slow overall, and such are smoothed out) at all so I would suspect a different 'issue'—like the number and aggregate sizes of its images for the effect I understand you to be describing—so far as I know, large high density images are scaled within our local processor [and in turn affected by the settings we all have in 'User preferences for thumbs sizing' or the override size (px) given in an pages image wikilink...
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details. Leaving as the killer server loading problem when a template is widely used and included in many articles as being updating pages that directly use such a tool in the update que. When and if a template is used in hundreds of pages, AGGRESSIVE CACHING means each of those pages needs updated when a portion of them (such as a template making up or affecting one part of same) is updated. THAT is the only sort of effect I've seen that actually slows down the system (and only for a time--the que is processed pretty quickly at a pretty high priority). Templates, especially those which invoke a variety of other templates in a chain, can cause that sort of effect when they affect a lot of pages and one of the lower ones down is changed. Such templates are usually protected now adays, and should be. But that sort of one time update change loading effect does not mean they should not be maintained or improved--only that such improvements should be done carefully and smartly by someone aware of loading issues (Admins).
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Should Mikhail Gorbachev (edit talk links history) be a page you check immediately after changing template XYZ, to see the effect of changes in template XYZ, you may well be seeing a lag because as a page it's somewhere down in the que and the system now has a bit set saying it needs recomposted. But that kind of lag is distinct and different than one slowing the whole system down... and may well slow up the re-caching of all pages affected (because your attempt to view it THEN AND THERE is ahead of the normal page updating cycle), or perhaps, make you wait while the scheduling executive software kernal catches up with your request for the (changing/changed/about to change/change needed) page, as it were. No way around THAT, but perhaps to delay accessing your test check for a few minutes (i.e. go off and take a whizz, kiss the wife, spank the baby, kick the cat, sit on the dog, or take a nap! <g>)
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.For what it's worth, my access to that page took over 8 seconds to load, and my change just now, about the same. By comparison, Ronald Reagan (edit talk links history) took over twenty seconds to appear. Mikhail is doing okay!!! (I wish him well! <g>)
Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.In any event, I doubt such an expansion will be a 'delay generator' of any significance compared to some of the more involved widely used and exotic templates like Infoboxes. Cheers! // FrankB 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Frank, this was most enlightening :) The very last point, however, still stands—you are saying that infoboxes are more widely used and exotic, but in reality the infoboxes tend to rely on conversion templates more and more often! Fully MOSNUM-compliant infoboxes would have not one but several conversion templates transcluded, so every bit of improvement brought to conversion templates would help somewhere in the processes you described.

Truth to be told, after giving more thought to a WA parameter, I like it even less. Surely, it'd help you save keystrokes, but it will do so once, while the added pre-expand size would be affecting (however slightly) everything for the lifetime of the template. Plus, you may need WA today, but it is no guarantee that someone would not want to widely deploy a conversion template with wiki off, abbr on, and precision of 1. What are we to do then, add a WnAP1 parameter? The situation is not at all theoretical—at one time I had to put a bunch of instances of one conversion template with one set of parameters, and another bunch with an opposite set of parameters. After I was done, I had no need for both combinations for quite a while. See what I mean?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Truth to be told, after giving more thought to a WA parameter, I like it even less. Surely, it'd help you save keystrokes, but it will do so once, while the added pre-expand size would be affecting (however slightly) everything for the lifetime of the template. Plus, you may need WA today, but it is no guarantee that someone would not want to widely deploy a conversion template with wiki off, abbr on, and precision of 1. What are we to do then, add a WnAP1 parameter? The situation is not at all theoretical—at one time I had to put a bunch of instances of one conversion template with one set of parameters, and another bunch with an opposite set of parameters. After I was done, I had no need for both combinations for quite a while. See what I mean?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No worries mate. I already figured the issue was dead, as old Ben says: "A man convinced against his will, is unconvinced still." There is after all the unconventional (but functional) option of using {{tlx|km to mi|wiki=yes|abbr=yes| as the cut buffer contents and pasting THAT... with due observance of the proper number in the proper place, natch. For my part, if you want to shave bytes, kill the need to spell out 'yes' and just test for any true value so {{km to mi|wiki=1|abbr=2|### or {{tlx|km to mi|wiki=x|abbr=@|###}} etc. all work instead. Such would save a few bytes and typing, I'd guess. But if the concept doesn't float your boat, don't! No problem. I'm admittedly lazy! <G> // FrankB 15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you should probably know that I created the conversion templates after only reading through the template documentation for about an hour or so, so I realize that there may be quite a few more bytes to shave in the code as it currently stands :) Now, I only wish I had time to re-visit the templates and optimize them using the practices folks were so helpful to point out to me since then...

By the way, did you take a look at the pop density templates? Will the concept work for your purposes?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

re: By the way, did you take a look at the pop density templates? Will the concept work for your purposes?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad... I'd answered that those looked perfect, but apparently refactored (edit goof) that answer right out of the discussion. Sorry. Those are "just what the doctor ordered", which is the same phrase I seem to have lost in the bit bucket! Cheers! // FrankB 16:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Regions-Ulus

Посмотрите. Вы ОКАТО больше верите здесь XLS-Перечень кодов ОКАТО, действующих с 1 января 2006 года (16.03.2007 )] --213.148.170.162 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ну, во-первых, зачем посылать меня на производные сайты, когда можно посмотреть оригинал. А во-вторых, как следует из того, что я только что написал на Talk:Aldansky Ulus, дело не в ОКАТО, а в законах Республики Саха, которые термины "улус" и "район" используют pretty much как попало вообще, и в применении к Алданскому улусу/району в частности. И делают они это в полном соответствии с процитированным вами законом РС "Об административно-территориальном устройстве Республики Саха (Якутия)". Из чего следует, что разницы, как мы назовём статью тут, нет никакой. Термин "улус" используется, чтобы все статьи назывались по одной схеме, только и всего.

P.S. Вы бы, может быть, представились? Судя по ремарке об ОКАТО мы с вами уже раньше что-то обсуждали?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

К названию статьи в en:Wiki претензий нет, кроме может одной, указан герб муниципального образования "Алданский район", просто по русски принято называть часть улусов (районов) Якутии (причём это закреплено в муниципальных законах) либо районами либо улусами, а для некоторых из них это равнозначно (вот такое странное явление). В en-Wiki я не регистрировался в ru-Wiki ru:Участник:Ss_novgorod —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.170.162 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

В английской вике статьи создаются об административных районах; муниципальные же должны упоминаться в тексте (см., например, Giaginsky District). Насчёт герба подмечено верно; надо будет, наверное, немного подправить инфобокс, чтобы было понятно, что герб является символом муниципального, а не административного образования. Статистика по адм. и мун. образованиям в инфобоксе уже и так разделена (опять же, см. Гиагинский район Адыгеи для иллюстрации), просто для Алданского района муниципальная секция не заполнена.

Что касается названия, то обзор ситуации следующий: к административным улусам (районам) могут с равным правом применяться и термин "улус", и термин "район". К муниципальным же районам термин "улус" не применяется никогда (поскольку это противоречило бы федеральному закону №131-ФЗ); однако термин может служить составной частью собственного названия муниципального района. Так, предмет нашей дискуссии (административная единица) может упоминаться либо как "Алданский улус", либо как "Алданский район" (собственное название — "Алданский"). Муниципальная единица упоминается только как "муниципальный район" и имеет собственное название "Алданский район" (т.е. полностью: муниципальный район "Алданский район", муниципальный район "Амгинский улус (район)", муниципальный район "Кобяйский улус" и т.д. согласно закону от 30 ноября 2004 года 172-З №351-III "Об установлении границ и о наделении статусом муниципального района муниципальных образований Республики Саха (Якутия)").

Ничего не упустил? Всё логично и верно?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Да наверное так всё логично, просто в ru-Wiki аноним внёс правки в статью называвшиюся в то время Алданский улус Якутии, попытался разобраться - действительно он прав, а вопрос действительно видимо важный [cм. например Улус переименовали в район через суд]--213.148.170.162 20:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Понятно. Спасибо за ссылку, довольно интересно. Не похоже только, чтобы эта инициатива с 2003 года куда-либо продвинулась.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Если смотреть периодически на сайт правительства Якутии, тот там заметны перемены в части конкретизации, что улус а что район. Видно, что то там меняется последнее время... Ну всё наверное...--213.148.170.162 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

За сайтами, вообще, следить очень часто бесполезно, поскольку на сайтах обычно творится бардак. Гораздо надёжнее следить за изменениями в законодательстве (которое, помимо всего прочего, всегда можно процитировать как надёжный источник). За последние же несколько месяцев в законодательстве РС(Я) по поводу терминологии ничего не менялось. Вам сообщить если появится что-либо интересное?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Novopetrovsk

Ezhiki, can you look into the article? Should we make a Disambig out of it? Alex Bakharev 06:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Alex! Don't worry, when your bot catches a geo-article, it gets on my to-do list automatically, and this particular one I am hoping to sort out today, as it is a complete mess. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 11:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As i understood you are Russian so...

Could you please help with the Russian martial arts thing?

I will tell you the problems:

1. Russian martial arts article needs referencing, and i couldn't find thise.

2. There are articles about martial arts in Russian that need to be translated to English. After translated to English, they also need to be referenced and expanded (the demends on the English Wikipedia are higher). Those articles are: [2], [3], [4].

If you can't do that, then please leave that messege to someone who can help here. Thank you. PocketMoon 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, PocketMoon! Although I am indeed a Russian, I, unfortunately, don't know much about Russian martial arts nor, frankly, am I much interested in this topic. You might have better luck if you post at Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board; at least more people will see your request for assistance. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Haven't known about that thing. PocketMoon 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)