Talk:Types of inhabited localities in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move[edit]

I have reverted this move by The Transhumanist (from "Types of inhabited localities in Russia" to "Types of settlements in Russia"). It is bad enough that both "посёлок" and "поселение" are translated as "settlement"; it is even worse to start translating "населённый пункт" as such. Changing "inhabited localities" to "settlements" may seem like a reasonable simplification of grammar at first, and I have nothing against such usage in articles mentioning Russian "inhabited localities/settlements" in passing, but it is very important to avoid unnecessary ambiguity in articles dealing with the specifics of the subject. Note, for example, that inhabited localities can be rural and urban, yet (municipal) settlements (which are a very different concept) can be rural and urban as well. A "settlement" is also a type of a rural locality, and there is an "urban-type settlement", which is a type of an urban locality. Not making things simpler, settlements (a type of a rural locality) can be a part of "municipal rural settlements", and an "urban-type settlement" usually serves as the core of a "municipal urban settlement". If you think all this is confusing, try replacing all instance of "locality" with "settlement" and see if that makes any sense at all!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Move to Types of populated places in Russia[edit]

I suggest to move the article to "Types of populated places in Russia". It is now possibly that this article uses the Wikipedia wide standard term "populated place" instead of "inhabited locality". Each "inhabited locality in Russia" is a "populated place in Russia" and "inhabited locality" is not an official term. So it is perfectly fine to use standard WP naming.

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Amended Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is not a matter of which term is more correct or which is more official—both approximately equivalent in those regards—it is a matter of which term is more suitable for use in the context. Multiple translations of the Russian term "населённые пункты" are possible and in use. For the article-writing purposes, however, the one that best fits the overall structure is selected, and in this case that one is "inhabited localities". I find it very surprising that a move like this would be proposed solely on the basis that other Wikipedia categories (not even articles!) use. Categories are a convenience tool that should follow the encyclopedic usage, not the other way around. Note, for example, how most of the subcats in Category:Subdivisions by country are titled "Subdivisions of XXX", yet hardly any main articles in those subcats are titled so (or even use the term "subdivisions"). The situation here is no different. "Populated places" is an accurate, but a cumbersome term to use in articles about Russian concepts, just like "subdivisions" is an accurate, but a cumbersome term to use in articles about, say, the administrative divisions of France.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)
    Lot of words, but what is the benefit of using the non-standard term over the standard term for the article in question? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "non-standard"? The term is grammatically correct and is used in literature. A convenience of using the term "populated places" to name the categories does not make it "standard" that should be used in articles, just like a convenience of using "subdivisions" to name the categories does not make it "standard" that should be used in articles. We have plenty of categories using artificial terms solely for convenience and no one would seriously suggest to rename the actual articles based on what the cats are called.
    On the practical side, referring to the types of inhabited localities (which is what the subject of this article is) as "urban localities" and "rural localities" is far less cumbersome and more common than referring to them as "populated places of urban type" and "populated places of rural type" or as "urban populated places" and "rural populated places". Come to think of it, I've never even seen such terms in any academic publications in English, at least not in the publications about Russia or the Soviet Union.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 16:40 (UTC)
    Non-standard refers to the fact that in WP outside articles related to Russia the term "populated place" is used and only Russia uses "inhabited locality". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Our articles are supposed to use the terminology preferred by the sources, not by other Wikipedia articles (or we'd long have moved List of boroughs and census areas in Alaska to "counties of Alaska" and List of parishes in Louisiana to "counties of Louisiana"). As a quick visit to a library would attest, sources dealing with Russia tend to use "populated places" in general context and "inhabited localities" in both general context and the context of the administrative-territorial divisions. Since this article is in the context of the administrative-territorial divisions, that's the kind of terminology it should be using. Furthermore, there is no expectation that articles about the divisions of different countries should use the exact same terminology; that's an expectation we reserve only for the auxiliary tools such as categories. Also, regarding the USBGN and the websites that steal from build on it, their goal is not to provide encyclopedic information but rather to serve as gazetteers. They do not track the types of the inhabited localities, so labeling them all with a generic term works for them just fine. The term "populated place" used by the USBGN is not an encyclopedic definition, it is merely a label, a database field value. It has no encyclopedic value whatsoever, nor is it in any way official. It is very much like our choice of "subdivisions" to name the categories.
    Finally, you have not answered my question about what the names of the sections of this article will be if the move is completed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 18:21 (UTC)
    Both terms are generic, so inhabited locality is as good as populated place in that respect. Sections can stay, they don't use "inhabited". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Both terms are used as generic, but "inhabited localities" is the term that's used more often when talking about the administrative-territorial divisions specifically. What's more, I've never seen any book that describes "populated places" in Russia as being divided into "urban localities" and "rural localities", which is what this article will do if we rename it. What's wrong with sticking to what sources use, again?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 19:13 (UTC)
    I have never seen a book having that much content as Wikipedia has. ... Could it be that "inhabited locality" is a little bit less generic, are there any populated places that wouldn't be called "inhabited locality"? The reader that sees all the other countries using "populated place" may think that "inhabited locality" is some special form, a sub set, of populated places. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    In general, a "populated place" is any place that's populated, just as an "inhabited locality" is any place that's inhabited. Both terms can and do refer to an area of human habitation with a formal status, but the term "inhabited locality" is used more often in the context of Russian administrative-territorial and municipal divisions, while the term "populated places" is used for more generic purposes. So, if the reader thinks that "inhabited localities" in Russia are a subset of "populated places", that's going to be pretty close to truth.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:09 (UTC)
  • Rename to Municipalities of Russia - neither the current title nor the proposed one reflects naming conventions on Wikipedia for this type of article, as both titles are unique. The generic name for "populated places" (settlements) appears to be municipality, which includes cities, towns, villages, etc. Compare:
    I hope the above observations help. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    Ahem, Municipalities in Russia are a whole different thing entirely... some contain dozens of inhabited localities, as a matter of fact, and some inhabited localities aren't a part of any municipality. Just because some countries refer to the populated places as "municipalities" doesn't mean all do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 15, 2011; 14:37 (UTC)
    Ahemming people is kind of rude and insulting. You shouldn't be treating Wikipedians with disrespect. We're volunteering our time to this worthy project and we all deserve better than that.

    My point was, that "municipality" is the generic (common) term for settlement, whether a country has a customized context for the word or not. In English, they're all "municipalities", and this is the English Wikipedia. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PLACE.

    We run into the same problem with the term "region". The common name for any area is "region", but some countries name their subdivisions "regions" instead of "provinces". Even though they're "regions" by official name, they and other subdivisions and areas are still regions in general. They don't stop being regions in English because a country decides to use the same word as an official designation. See region. The term may show up at more than one level in the an article's heading structure. The Transhumanist 23:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
    A municipality can be coterminous with one populated place, be a part of one, or contain several. Either this article talks about populated places or it talks about municipalities. "Inhabited localities" is a distracting name if it means the same as populated place. But maybe it refers to a specific type of populated places in Russia. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
    Why exactly is it distracting? Distracting from what? The terms do mostly mean the same thing, that's true, but "inhabited localities" is used more often in the context this article covers, which is why it is used here. Consistency should not be enforced at the expense of usage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:09 (UTC)
    Transhumanist, you are the first person I've ever met who perceived an "ahem" as rude, insulting, and disrespectful, but since you find it offensive, I have struck it. Rest assured, it was only to emphasize what I said next. On your other point, while "municipality" can indeed be used as a generic term for a settlement, this article is not about a generic concept. It is about a specific concept within a specialized context, and the term itself has a very specific meaning in the context of Russia. To borrow your "region" example, it may be OK to use the generic term in an article about regions in general, but it would be a mistake to use the term generically in articles where the term "region" has a specific meaning. Think about it this way—how are you going to explain the relation between municipalities and inhabited localities in Russia if you use the same term to refer to both? And this relation is something this particular article should cover (and currently doesn't).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 14:09 (UTC)
  • Canvassing Warning Please note that Bogdan Nagachop has engaged in canvassing for this discussion here (The Transhumanist & here (Hmains). I have left them a warning but anyone closing this should be aware. Spartaz Humbug! 03:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:CANVASS#Appropriate_notification: On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  Scale   Message   Audience   Transparency
Appropriate Limited posting (2x) AND Neutral (ok, maybe guilty of that) AND Nonpartisan (selecting all involved parties, knowing Ezhiki had seen it - I cannot recall right now, but usually I make sure he knows it too.) AND Open (publicly visible)
Inappropriate Mass posting OR Biased - Ok, my message may have been biased. OR Partisan OR Secret
Term Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")   Campaigning   Votestacking   Stealth canvassing
  • Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Rename populated place is the consensus built after long discussion of all possibilities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    The long discussion and the consensus was with regards to category naming, not article naming. This proposal suggests renaming an article solely because the categories are named differently. Normally it's the other way around, as it should be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 19, 2011; 20:50 (UTC)
    Maybe you can create an article "inhabited locality" that explains it's use. Then other people beside you can find out what the difference between "populated place" and "inhabited locality" is. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)