Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Administrative divisions of Adygea

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrative divisions of Adygea

[edit]

This is a self-nomination. The list organizes information on modern administrative and territorial division of the Russian republic of Adygea, provides background and brief history, and explains used terminology. The list is referenced and comprehensive. While future changes in administrative division are possible, they are likely to be minor and can be dealt with fairly quickly. There've never been any edit wars or disputes over this list. All used maps are licensed under GFDL. The list undewent a peer review in the past, and most of the peer review concerns have been addressed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I appreciate it very much. Many thanks to Ëzhiki, nice job. I wish he does something similar in ru_wiki, unfortunately I don't even have a hope (sigh). MaxiMaxiMax 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I must admit that the feeling and hopes are mutual :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per WP:WIAFL 1a ("useful") requires that "the list covers a topic ... by bringing together a group of related articles". Most of the Rural okrugs do not have articles. What this list currently does is is bring together articles on the Districts and "Urban-type settlements" in Adygea. If the list was named "Districts of Adygea", this wouldn't be a problem. Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concern, but must say it misses the point. "Administrative division" of any Russian federal subject includes, first and foremost, its division into districts, as well as the definition of status of its inhabited localities, which is precisely what this list is about. Lower levels of administrative divisions (in this case rural okrugs) are generally of very little interest, since they are basically nothing more than groups of rural settlements combined for purposes of having a unified local self-government. One can write a perfectly encyclopedic article about districts or about each inhabited locality, but there really nothing to say about rural okrugs besides the fact that they exist and what villages they include. That's the reason why rural okrugs are not formatted as links—whatever one has to say about them would not be sufficient for such an article to be kept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Tompw (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (This is seperate from my above vote - it's some thoughts about possible improvements). I feel the article would benefit from a map showing the location of Adygea within Russia (maybe based on Image:BlankMap-RussiaDistricts.png). Also, it might be worth replacing Image:Adygea districts.png with a trimmed down version showing less of the area around Adygea. Also, some of the items listed under "Administrative division structure" don't have any explanation (what's the difference between an "aul" and a "selo", for instance?) Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I am hesitant to overload the list with generic maps. We already have an article on Adygea with the map you are seeking, and that article is linked to from inside the list. As you yourself pointed out, the list deals with the administrative division of Adygea, not with the republic's general overview and description. While I am not strongly against adding such a map, I'd rather hear more than one voice asserting its necessity in this list.
    As for the map already in place, I'll contact its creator (I wasn't one making it). It could probably use some trimming on left and right.
    Finally, both aul and selo are wikilinked, so a reader would have access to further information. Plus, it is already pointed out that there is no difference in status between various types of rural settlements, and that different names are used purely by tradition (see the "rural settlement" bullet under "Administrative division structure"). If you think that is insufficient, I would appreciate your further thoughts and ideas on how to improve it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree that the map would benefit from L/R trim and also a larger font size even if this means the words escape outside a district. The use of small fonts elsewhere in the article doesn't seem justified and makes it harder to read. The layout isn't attractive IMO. The map juts into the text in an awkward way (don't think we need another map here BTW). The individual district maps could be folded into the tables as a big cell. Perhaps the district name and its language variants could be handled in a more compact form. Although many of the foreign terms are wikilinked, it would help to briefly explain some of them here so the reader can understand the article at a basic level without having to follow lots of links. The list of rural settlement types could have an explanation after each term. I agree that the rural okrugs probably aren't significant enough for articles. The prose is hard work to read due to the foreign terms and the dense amount of info covered. Perhaps someone can help copyedit to make it flow easier? Colin°Talk 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Colin. You are welcome to tweak the list yourself if you can think of any obvious improvements, by the way. Now, to address some of your points:
  • The author of the map intends to tweak it (L/R trim; increase fonts) over this weekend.
  • The small type was used purely to emphasize the fourth-level section titles. When regular font is used, it becomes very difficult to see where one subsection ends and another begins. I agree that small type is probably not the best solution, but I can't think of a better one. Ideas are welcome.
  • The layout has been a problem from day one. Incorporating district maps into corresponding tables has been tried, and the results were far from appealing (cf. administrative divisions of Moscow where this approach is utilized). I am willing to try any other suggestions, though.
  • The types of rural settlements only have different names due to tradition; there is no difference in their status whatsoever (which is already mentioned in the list). Effectively, all these terms are nothing but synonyms. The histories of each type of settlement are different, but they are outside of this list's scope, because, again, none of that matters at present.
  • The prose is indeed dense, but that's the nature of the list and the subject it deals with. My assumption is that people interested in this topic would devote some time to studying terminology, because there really is no way one can understand the subject without understanding the terminology first.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Administrative_divisions_of_Adygea&oldid=1138478910"