Jump to content

Talk:Adlersky City District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

I was in Adler this summer and as I'd understood, Adler themself is much smaller than the district. For example, Mzymta, 72 km long river, for the most part flow in the district, but Adler themself is situated in the mouth...--Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adler was historically a settlement near Sochi. Then Greater Sochi grew and absorbed quite a few settlements around it, including Adler. Those settlements are still traditionally viewed by the residents as something standalone and distinct, but in reality none of them has any special status. Adler, for example, is merely a microdistrict and a resort area. It has no special administrative status that separates it from Adlersky City District to which it belongs—it is neither a town nor a village. The bottom line is that historical Adler is a part of the modern city district, and that's that. Plus, the amount of content is too little to justify having a separate article. Even if the section grows later and splitting the artile becomes justified, the offshot will be under Adler Microdistrict (or whatever it's officially called), not under "Adler, Russia", as the latter implies settlement status.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, update. It's not even a microdistrict. Historical Adler comprises several microdistricts, but by itself it is not officially distinguished in any way. All the more reasons to keep the articles merged, in my view... However, if you still wish to reverse the split, then move the Adler portion to Adler, Sochi and mention that "Adler is a historical area of Adlersky City District of Sochi, formerly a settlement". That should take care of all contingencies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll be better to merge... But in some cases Adler could not be equal to the district.. Adler is a member en:Category:Defunct towns in Russia, like Tushino, isn't it??? --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 20:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's a limitation. I don't like it myself, but as long as it's made clear that old Adler and modern city district aren't quite the same thing, I think it should be OK. Ideally, Tushino should also be merged, although it's even more complicated because one old town now corresponds to two modern districts. Something to think about, I guess. I don't know what the best way to handle these situations is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon in any part of the world for a local-government district to be named after the nucleus seen as the most important (historically, administratively, or in some other way) within its bounds – but it's equally usual for this situation to be dealt with by having two articles: one about the town itself and one about the district. I don't see why that shouldn't be done here. People go on holiday to "Adler", not to "Adlersky City District", just as, in the UK, they visit "Bath", and not "Bath & North East Somerset" (and each of these entities has, of course, its own article).
Just one other thing: formerly a town at the mouth of the Mzymta River is a very odd sentence: it suggests either that Adler is no longer a town and/or that it has moved! -- Picapica 15:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not suggest that Adler is no longer a town, it actually means it :) Adler as a town no longer exists; Adlersky City District (which covers the territory of the former town and more) does. If you can re-word the sentence in question for it to sound better, however, by all means do so.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Ezhiki, I do find that your argument flies in the face of linguistic reality. In English, a town is a town. We know one when we see one – irrespective of bureaucratic classification. Adler could only stop being a town by growing so large that we might want to call it a city (even then, what are officially "cities" are still often called towns), or because it had been obliterated (and even then, we'd call it the "destroyed town of Adler"), or because it had dwindled so much in size that we might want to call it a village (but even then, people say things like "the town is no bigger than a village really"). Adler can't stop being a town by decree. "Adler as a town no longer exists" means that all or nearly all the buildings have been destroyed and the place is entirely or nearly uninhabited.
What you appear to have in mind is an item of Russian official classificatory terminology (город?) which you want to translate as "town" -- but the English word won't bear that meaning. I repeat: a town is a town is a town. People travelling along a road don't say things like:
— This is the nicest of the three towns we've seen today.
— Why, whatever do you mean? The first one was an urban community and I'm sure that if you enquire at the post-office you'll find that this one is in fact a microdistrict.
If we want to convey the official status of the town of Adler (and there is no reason why we shouldn't), then I think we need to use the Russian term – if its meaning is so restricted – in the same way that we use raion, oblast, etc. Then we could have a statement along the lines of "The town of Adler itself, now administered as part of the Adlersky raion of the city of Sochi lost its independent status as a municipality (gorod) in 19.."
Meanwhile, I'll see if I can try to get Adler back to its position at the mouth of the Mzymta...:) -- Picapica 19:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some English-language quotes from the BBC and others: the Russian coastal town of Adler ... in the nearby town of Adler ... en route to the town of Adler ... the Russian town of Adler ... a trout farm in the town of Adler ... going to the Russian town of Adler ... the Russian seaside border town of Adler ... the town of Adler to the east of Sochi ... He died three years ago, in the town of Adler ... the resort town of Adler -- Picapica 19:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these references are historical, some are not up-to-date. When a place ceases to exist (either physically or administratively), one can't expect all references to it to miraculously disappear (especially in foreign language publications, which are always a bit behind)...
This is not just a matter of "bureacracy" either. A city/town status in Russia is something that is always officially conferred; there is no grey area there. When a town is annexed (in this case by Sochi), it is no longer a town despite the fact that it may still be perceived as one by the local residents. In the end, it all boils down to references. The list of inhabited localities (which comprise cities/towns, urban-type settlements, and rural localities) of Krasnodar Krai does not contain "Adler". You can still call it a "town" in historical perspective or in a casual context, but to have an article called "Adler" stating that "Adler is a town in Krasnodar Krai" is simply factually incorrect. It is no longer a town. It is no longer any kind of inhabited locality. It is a territory that is a part of a city district of Sochi—a fact that can be well-referenced.
All in all, it's not that I oppose having an article with historical information on Adler, but rather the fact that the existing article is so short that describing both the historical city and the modern city district in one place is only logical. When the article grows, there is nothing preventing us from splitting it then.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably time for me to give up banging my head against a brick wall, as you simply do not get my point! Adler may not be a город, but in English it is a town ("a place where people live and work, containing many houses, shops, places of work, places of entertainment, etc., and usually larger than a village but smaller than a city") – and this is the English-language Wikipedia. The English words "village / town /city", etc. just do not map exactly to "aldea / pueblo / ciudad", "by / stad", "ville / village", "Stadt / Dorf", or any Russian words in the same semantic area, and it is foolish to try and make the English word "town" mean what Russian administrators mean by "город". If you want to convey the Russian meaning you must use the Russian word. This is not an argument about "historical perspective" or "casual context"; it is about use of the English language in the English-language Wikipedia. -- Picapica 12:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I get your point exactly right, I just happen to disagree with how you are applying it! To summarize (and do correct me if I misunderstood you): in English, just about any place may be called a "town". The word "town" also happens to be a translation of the Russian word "город", which is used to refer to an official status of a place as well as colloquially (although not to the same casual degree as in English). In general, I have no problem whatsoever with using the word "town" casually. If, for example, you were writing about some person who recently "visited the town of Adler", that is completely fine by me. Unlike the second traveller in your dialog above, I would not rush to change this completely innocent sentence to something like "visited the former town of Adler, now a microdistrict of Adlersky City District of the city of Sochi". This would, of course, be very precise, but, considering the context, totally unnecessary and redundant. Now, on the other hand, when we are writing about the actual status of Adler within a Sochi city district, providing this detailed of an explanation is the right thing to do as the topic is dealt with directly and not as a passer-by reference. Using correct terminology in this case is the key to accuracy: when we are writing articles about Russian "города", the only two words that can be used to precisely indicate their official status are "city" and "town". But like you said, in English these same words can be used to refer to pretty much any inhabited locality regardless of its official status! This is precisely the reason why I always insist on using the terms "city/town", "rural locality", etc. in the article about the topic at hand—it is the only way to ensure that accurate information is supplied (sometimes at the expense of the more common meanings of the words, yes). There really is no need to lower ourselves to the level of Britannica, which usually places itself above such minute details—we are here to write the best and the most accurate encyclopedia after all, right? Just because the word "town" can be applied to just about any locality and conflicts with the translation of the meanings of the official terms is not, in my view, a good enough reason to call any attempts to convey what the actual official status is foolish and/or to resort to "common use" in all cases. What is foolish is to dumb down the information with the sole purpose of getting it to sound a little better.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am far from being an advocate of any kind of "dumbing-down", Ezhiki! I have never said that the administrative status of the place should be glossed over in the interests of euphony. In fact, I have written more than once, I believe, that the status should be made clearer (by not attempting to make "town" mean "город", which in this context it clearly doesn't). My objection was not to how the statement "Adler is not a town" sounds, but to the fact that – in the absence of some further elucidation – it is simply not true, given the English meaning of those English words. I hope you will find my latest edit, which attempts to supply that elucidation, an acceptable compromise solution. All the best. -- Picapica 17:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I find your latest edit quite acceptable. You said exactly what I meant, only better :) I do have a question about your position, though. You said that I am attempting to make "town" mean "город". However, the English word "town" (no matter in what sense one is using it) is always translated to Russian as "город"; and the word "город" is always translated to English as either "city" or "town" (depending, mostly, on the size of the place). I am not aware of any other options, but from what I understand, you declare that the English word "town" is not an accurate term to refer to "город". So, either I understand you incorrectly, or you have some other term in mind that serves the purpose much better. Could you, please, clarify this?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am so glad that we have finally come to an agreement, Uwe Doorluchtige Egelheid :)
What I meant by saying that you were attempting to make "town" mean "город" was that you were wanting the bare English word to carry the particular and circumscribed meaning that the Russian word has in the context of Russian territorial organization (and which the English word does not have). That is why I thought that something like the solution I finally came up with, of "town (город)" – with the link to Types of inhabited localities in Russia, was necessary. Of course town = gorod = town in the normal run of events, but because a special meaning is intended here, just "town" would not do to convey the idea of an official categorization. I.e. "the English word 'town' [unqualified] is not an accurate term to refer to 'город'" when the latter is used in its strict administrative sense. Since making that edit, I have been looking at the entry for another Russian place (Krymsk) – and I notice that someone else had already rendered "town" by "[ [Types of inhabited localities in Russia|town] ]" in that article, so it looks like I may have re-invented the wheel! -- Picapica 20:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess you shouldn't be too surprised to find out that it was me who started linking the term in the first place :) Krymsk just happens to be one of very few articles where the term was not linked by me. Anyway, thanks for the thorough explanation; I now understand why you approached this issue the way you did. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Adlersky City District. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adlersky_City_District&oldid=1204538283"