Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Russia: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:59, 15 November 2010 editEzhiki (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators165,314 edits MIFI cmt← Previous edit Revision as of 17:35, 15 November 2010 edit undoKsaine (talk | contribs)337 edits Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University): Deleted personal agressive.Next edit →
Line 224: Line 224:


Perhaps some of you would be able to help at ] where there is a dispute about wikilinking of dates, inclusion or exclusion from categories, the name of the university and how it is expressed, and other matters. --] (]) 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps some of you would be able to help at ] where there is a dispute about wikilinking of dates, inclusion or exclusion from categories, the name of the university and how it is expressed, and other matters. --] (]) 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
: Some same problems have appeared in some other articles about Russian universities (see ]). ] (]) 09:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
:: ] let me understand, what we discussing here? My contributions or the real questions/problems at the page? Rewrite please your comment/message or delete it: for example give more specific wikilinks you interested in. Thank You. Any Your contributions without answer to this message - and I'll delete it myself or talk admins about deletion. --] (] · ]) 14:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
::: I suggest, you actions in the articles about Russian universities (renanimg / categorisation / wikilinks / external links (quantity/quality) / acronyms / commons links) must be reviewed by WikiProject Russia editors. ] (]) 09:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


== ] of ] == == ] of ] ==

Revision as of 17:35, 15 November 2010

WikiProject iconRussia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

To-do list for Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Russia: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2014-01-18

Things you can do Привет and Welcome! The following is a list of things you can do:

Russia articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 9 17 29 32 1 88
FL 2 4 6 2 14
FM 96 96
A 2 3 12 12 29
GA 27 39 117 226 3 412
B 221 295 523 765 1 21 250 2,076
C 362 634 1,293 3,005 4 26 826 6,150
Start 435 1,526 6,439 14,594 9 46 2,521 25,570
Stub 12 229 4,101 45,157 56 34 3,608 53,197
List 70 95 436 3,289 37 5 248 4,180
Category 21,486 21,486
Disambig 250 250
File 473 473
Portal 26 26
Project 126 126
Redirect 1 523 1,936 114 2,574
Template 4,386 4,386
NA 14 14
Other 120 120
Assessed 1,140 2,842 12,957 67,605 29,020 246 7,457 121,267
Unassessed 370 4 20 1,346 1,740
Total 1,140 2,842 12,957 67,975 29,024 266 8,803 123,007
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 478,425 Ω = 5.47

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage WPT

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6



This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Russian Ground Forces

Russian Ground Forces has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrot of Doom (talkcontribs)

Assessments heads-up

Just a heads-up to folks who are doing assessments—when assessing/re-assessing articles, please spell out the banner name completely (i.e., use {{WikiProject Russia}}, not {{WPRUSSIA}} or any other shortcuts). The reason for that is the new {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} service available to WikiProjects—it watches the articles pertaining to the WikiProjects based on the banner which the articles are tagged with, but, unfortunately, it does not work with the redirects to the main banner. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:53, February 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Misplaced Pages:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Misplaced Pages talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Things we can do

Could some of the members of our numerous membership base please comment at Portal talk:Russia/Things you can do regarding how the "what you can do" banner situated at the top of this very page should be treated? Should we just worship it or is anyone planning on actually putting it to some use? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:01, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Infobox practices and original research

There is a discussion going on at Template talk:Infobox Russian federal city regarding whether determining the elevation of a city via Google Earth is considered original research, and whether poorly-definable figures such as metro area/population should be included in the infoboxes at all. Additional input there would most certainly be appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:48, May 6, 2009 (UTC)

Chechens in Poland

Don't you think that we should expand Chechen_people#Geography_and_diaspora? Those sluggards are creating more and more problems, gaining national attention.

terror template

can someone create a template for the list of terror attacks in russia along the lines of that of pakistan, iraq or india (Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism or Template:Campaignbox India terrorism)??

peer review

Can we get this article peer reviewed? 2010_Moscow_Metro_bombings it should be a GA or jsut below at least.

Cosmonautics Day

Could someone translate and add to this article following paragraph: В Российской Федерации День космонавтики отмечается в соответствии со статьёй 1.1 Федерального закона от 13 марта 1995 года № 32-ФЗ «О днях воинской славы и памятных датах России». http://ntc.duma.gov.ru/duma_na/asozd/asozd_text.php?code=22479—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.67.229 (talkcontribs)

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 30, 2010; 13:02 (UTC)

Militsiya

There's a discussion at Talk:Militsiya#Merger about a possibility of merging that article elsewhere (because the current title is not a very good choice). If you have comments/suggestions/concerns, please voice them there. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 20, 2010; 16:11 (UTC)

“Urban-Type Settlements”

Ëzhiki and I have had a long discussion on my talk page about locality names and articles, regrettably without reaching agreement. I think it is time these issues are brought to the attention of the wider group.

There is an excellent and very useful article on Urban-type settlements in Russia which clarifies the different types of localities as officially defined, and the peculiar system used.

One of these – “рабочие посёлки" - is translated in the article as “Work Settlement”. This is probably the best literal translation, and is perhaps the best to use in the technical article on official classifications, where something short is required, but it nonetheless is a poor and often misleading translation.

What Russians understand by the Russian words is something like “a place of housing, shops, and small industry not dependent on agriculture”. But English speakers understand the English words to mean something like "a camp for temporary workers, such as migrant farm workers", i.e. very different concepts come to mind, so the one is not a good translation of the other. The primary distinction between agricultural and non-agricultural is not common in English speaking countries, and it is even pretty meaningless in Britain (where nearly every village is a commuter village). Many “urban-type localities” are not at all urban in the normal understanding of English speakers, so that too is highly misleading.

Obviously we can’t use the long phrase, nor is it sensible to use the Russian without any translation, yet the poor and literal translation is not good by itself. So in most places I would advocate supplementing the literal translation with an appropriate description, and usually treat that description as the more important item.

We have also been discussing the structure of locality articles. I think that while the official classification may be important, it is not a good starting point and it should be kept brief when it appears. Instead, articles should start with a description of the place, preferably sourced. I believe this is our practice for other countries, where for example London starts with a statement that it is a “Capital City” or in an earlier version that it is a “Global City”; both statements are good descriptions, but are not the official classifications (which say that it is a “region” including three cities, with the capital buildings mostly in the City of Westminster).

In the Malakhovka, Moscow Oblast article that started this discussion, I would advocate writing “Malakhovka is a Moscow suburb with historic dachas”, citing a source for the statement, and later saying “officially classified as a “Work Settlement”, without adding “urban-type locality” or the ridiculous long footnote there now. Although suburb is rarely an official status in any country, it is well defined on our article on the subject and well understood by most.

Conclusion

I propose:

1 - In technical articles regarding official place types we use literal translations such as "Work Settlement", but explain how they can be misleading. Anywhere else we should also have a description, preferably sourced, of what the area is like. This even includes the “set index” for Russian urban localities with a particular name, where our guidelines do permit supplementary information to clarify things.

2 – The official description should be kept brief, e.g. “Work Settlement” or “Urban-type Locality”, but not both and not with a long footnote. The few who really want the technical information can look it up elsewhere.

3 – A locality article should start with a good description, and only later, perhaps much later, should the official place type be shown, with a phrase like 'Officialy classed as a Work Settlement', or at least with quotation marks, to indicate that the literal English translation is not a good indication of anything. This is better style for an encyclopaedia, where people should be able to tell from the first sentence some crucial points and whether they want to read further. It is also consistent with better Wiki articles in other regions.

What do group members think?

Thanks,

William MacDougall 09:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmacdougall (talkcontribs)

We had an extensive discussion with William about this on his talk page. Not wanting to subject anyone to having to read pages and pages of arguments and counter-arguments, I'm going to do a simple recap of the counter-points I offered William. I would appreciate opinions of other members of this WikiProject on this.
  • The purpose of the "literal translation", as William calls it, is to have a term which we could use within the framework of the classification of the Russian inhabited localities. We can't constantly use long descriptive terms when we need to explain, for example, what three types of urban-type settlements exist in Russia. For this purpose, the term needs to be short and technical.
  • All articles on the Russian inhabited localities are structured (or strive to be structured) consistently—in the lead, we start with the classification of what a place is, what its administrative jurisdiction is, state its population, and point out its most important traits. After skimming through a couple articles, a reader would know exactly where in the article certain bits of information are located, and can easily and intuitively skip over the part which are of no interest to him/her.
  • The usage of the "literal translation" is not forced down the throat of our editors and readers elsewhere in the article. While its usage may be unavoidable when discussing the history of the administrative jurisdiction of a place and in the appropriate sections of the infobox, in all other regards a descriptive approach works just fine.
  • The confusion over what the term means is caused not by poor translation, but rather by the fact that the concept itself would be unfamiliar to most Western readers. This is easily remedied by linking the term to the article which appropriately explains all of the intricacies of the terminology. We don't expect to have an explanation "supplementing the literal translation with an appropriate description" in any other articles, we simply do the linking. Why should the articles on the Russian places be an exception?
  • William continues to call the term "urban-type settlements" "misleading". That is not to him, or me, or to anyone else here to decide; it is merely an irrelevant personal opinion. The term exists, it is used in the same context by the academia, hence we are using it as well. It is inventing simpler and "not-so-misleading" terms to replace established terminology that is wrong.
  • On the complaint that starting an article with the official designation is "not a good starting point", I not only disagree, but also point out thousands of other articles which start with just such designation. True, quite often this designation matches the laymen vernacular ("city" in something like "Foo is a city in the FarAwayLand" is both an official designation and descriptive), but that does not deteriorate the point in any way. Additionally, the geographic articles are supposed to follow the guidelines and practices adopted by the WikiProject which covers that geographic area (we do, for example, have a separate naming guideline for most countries), and starting articles this way is something WP:RUSSIA had been doing for ages. Changing this would require overhauling literally thousands of articles to conform to William's new vision, whatever it turns out to be, and I somehow doubt we are going to have volunteers for this task.
  • The "ridiculous long footnote" in the Malakhovka, Moscow Oblast article is actually a reference. Should I really lecture anyone on the importance of having referenced information?
  • The problem with starting that article "Malakhovka is a Moscow suburb with historic dachas" is that Malakhovka is neither in Moscow, nor is it its suburb, but rather a place that happens to be close to Moscow with Muscovites owning dachas there now and some prominent (or simply rich) Russians owning dachas there in the past. I have no problem with the "historic dachas" part—it is important, but it is already featured more than prominently in the current version, preceding even the official designation which William is so eager to remove.
On the William's proposals, I oppose #1 ("misleading" is a personal opinion; linking to an explanatory article is sufficient; we don't explain unfamiliar terms every single time we use them; set index articles were developed specifically to list the official designations of places of the same name—they have a very limited but a well-defined purpose which has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion here). I oppose #2, because the official designation exists on two levels—the place is either urban or rural, and there are multiple subcategories within both the urban and rural designation. I oppose #3 as it is not the usual approach in Misplaced Pages, would require an enormous amount of busywork of questionable utility, and require the readers to hunt down the bits they need all over the place, instead of finding them in a familiar location in every article.
Other memebers' thoughts would be greatly appreciated at this point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 14, 2010; 14:21 (UTC)

Some brief responses to some of Ezhiki's points:

Many of the articles I object to do not start with the "official designation", they start with a poor translation; “рабочие посёлки" does not mean "Work Settlement". Even if it were a good idea to start with the official designation (which I doubt), we don't and probably can't.

We can't eliminate all judgement. "Urban-type" is indeed misleading for many areas classed as that. Accepting a government's misleading designations is itself a judgement. Or should we accept that North Korea is a "Democracy" without question?

Of course we should have references, but those do not need to quote at great length as the Malakhovka example does, just point people to the source.

Malakhovka is a "suburb" as defined in the Misplaced Pages article on the subject, and as most people understand the term: "residential communities within commuting distance of a city." That it is not in the City of Moscow is irrelevant, suburbs do not even have to be in the same country (some of Geneva's suburbs are in France).

Misplaced Pages practise is not consistent. Some locality articles start with the official designation, others with descriptions. I propose we adopt the later practice (remembering that in many cases the official designation is a good description), and gradually amend articles where required.

Please others in the group comment.

William MacDougall 07:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwmacdougall (talkcontribs)

William, the point of this very thread is not to continue the discussion between me and you—we have already done that at great length on your talk page. The point of this thread is to gather opinions of what other people think. I am going to respond to the above only for the balance sake:
  1. That "work settlement" is a "poor translation" is your personal opinion which for some reason you are trying to promote. No one ever said you are not welcome to suggest an alternative translation which would work equally well for the purposes the current term is used now. Getting rid of a valid term altogether and replacing it with the poetry of "quaint little suburb in the green pastures near Moscow" is not going to solve anything; in fact, it is just such language that will make the article useless in an important aspect.
  2. Government classification of the inhabited localities is hardly a "judgement" in the sense you mean it; it is primarily a starting point. The designation in question has historically been used for decades, surviving a regime change. Unlike with North Korea, there is no ulterior motive to promote any political agenda by using the term (c'mon, what exactly is the promotional benefit of "misleadingly" classifying a bunch of places as "urban"?). Also, as long as the term is referenced and it is clear where it comes from and for what purpose it is used, there is no problem with using it. That covers the "democratic" North Korea as well, by the way.
  3. References are supposed to be properly formatted; see WP:CITE. It's no surprise that if a reference title is long, the footnote will be long as well. Both Russian and English have to be included because it's nearly impossible to find the source using only the English translation, and it'll be impossible to know what the source even is if only the original Russian is included.
  4. Malakhovka is not a suburb "as defined in the suburb article". In that article, the specifics of what a "suburb" is are organized by country, and Russia isn't mentioned even in passing in the text. Opinions exist that the whole Moscow Oblast and even some oblasts neighboring it are "suburbs" of Moscow; it doesn't mean we have to happily go on with that point of view.
  5. The "Misplaced Pages practise is not consistent" statement is patently wrong. Practices regarding articles on geographic locations are supposed to be consistent within the scope of each country, and within the scope of (WP:)Russia the consistency is nearing 100%. Only very general and basic principles are applied across the whole specter of the articles; and it is the area of human geography where the segregation of practices is the most pronounced. Also, the "descriptions" William alludes to are often nothing more than the official designations which just happen to match the terms used in common speech ("city", "town", "village", etc. can be both). As I have pointed out above, "amending the practice" as William suggests would require overhauling thousands of WP:Russia's articles—lots and lots of monkey-work with very questionable (if any) benefits.
Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 16, 2010; 13:44 (UTC)

Does no one else in the Russia group care how we write articles about localities? William MacDougall 14:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This group seems to be quite dead, so you two are pretty much on your own (I just lurk here). --Illythr (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for lurking. I have raised the issue on Naming Conventions so we will see if there is interest there, while Igels quite rightly asked for another opinion which might lead to discussion on my talk page. Thanks, William MacDougall 16:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

After taking a look at the arguments above, I can offer the following opinion: When describing a class of similar objects, Misplaced Pages should stick to sources and be consistent. Because of this, Ezhiki has the advantage here, due to the townships being classified this way in the Russian legislation. While certain townships may have a different description in other sources, no single source covers them all as the Russian laws do. So I feel the best way is to stick to the official classification and link to an article about this classification (in this case, urban-type settlement) where the term can be covered in detail, thus clearing any possible confusion of those who are unfamiliar with it. The simpler description may then follow if available. This seems to be standard practice and quite consistent throughout the various administrative divisions; for example, while a U.S. state is not a state (nor are most counties still ruled by a count) in the main meaning of the term, there is no need to create an individual description for any of them - instead, there's a link to the article that explains what it is. --Illythr (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Can anyone help us to translate into Russian a page re an artistic literary movement founded in 2007 in Italy and to upload it on Russian WP ? Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/IMMAGINE%26POESIA --Alessandroga80 (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Russia articles have been selected for the Misplaced Pages 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Misplaced Pages articles selected by the Misplaced Pages 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Russia articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Misplaced Pages talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Misplaced Pages talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Misplaced Pages for Schools to extend the reach of Misplaced Pages worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A-class review for Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open

A WPMILHIST A-class nomination of Sviatoslav's invasion of Bulgaria is open. Any interested editors are invited to participate. Any input is welcome! Constantine 11:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

Ok 1st I have to admit that I don't have a bit of Russian blood in my veins but for whatever reason I am the fellow that has taken on the French Invasion of Russia and the Battle of Borodino. The French Invasion of Russia is a work on progress but I've made great strides with the Battle of Borodino. I just wish I spoke Russian so I could read the Encyclopedia of Borodino 2004. That being said might I have someone run over and do a new assessment on that battle article, I'd like to get it to class A if I can.Tirronan (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Major proposed overhaul of Sea of Japan naming dispute

The article Sea of Japan naming dispute has been under full protection for about 1 month due to an edit war that occurred in August. Discussion on the talk page stalled at the end of August, and there are not many active participants on that page. Since that time, I have been working on a wholly new draft to fix, as best as I could, many of the numerous problems on the article. Since this article falls within the purview of this Wikiproject, I am inviting members to come participate in the discussion on the talk page at Sea of Japan naming dispute#Major overhaul, which explains the current articles deficiencies (poor sources, disorganized, etc.) and what I have done to fix them. In that section you will find a link to the draft version in my user space. While this article and its subject are clearly a contentious matter, I sincerely believe that we can create a useful and NPOV article about the subject through the careful involvement of more editors. Thank you for any help you can provide. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful editing by Shchebetenko

Please take a look at Special:Contributions/Shchebetenko - almost all of these edits are inappropriate because they overcategorize the subject. It is unhelpful to add a more general category, where the subject is already categorized in the more specific category. Plus this is a very strange editing pattern from a new user. Should this be mass-rollback-ed? Thoughts? -- Y not? 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

SPA changing nationalities to "Russian"

Someone here needs to look at the worrying edit history of Jsqqq777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He has been a single-purpose account who, for some time now, has been changing nationalities on biography articles from, e.g., Ukrainian or Polish to Russian. He has already been blocked for this activity, and a number of editors have approached him about the issue. He currently seems to be dismantling the categories Category:Ukrainian mathematicians and Category:Ukrainian physicists without any discussion. I would like to know if there is really consensus that anyone born in the Russian empire should be called "Russian", and that no one born in Ukraine after the 19th century Russian occupation and before the breakup of the Soviet union should be called "Ukrainian". There is a related discussion going on about this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Vladimir_Drinfeld. I thought this project should be consulted for input before escalating this to a WP:RFCU or a WP:ANI thread, since the editing pattern seems on the surface to be disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

To me the more worrying concern is listing people as having a Ukrainian nationality who were never alive at a time when Ukraine was a nation. It seems like historical revisionism to me. For sake of argument, possibly you might say that being Ukrainian is not a matter of citizenship but of ethnicity; but if this is to be the case then we would need verifiable sourcing that the person actually was of the stated ethnicity and that their ethnicity is specifically relevant to what they are notable for, per Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Also, your wording is rather one-sided: maybe you should instead ask, if there is really consensus that anyone born in what is now Ukraine should be called "Ukrainian". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
David, as you know Misplaced Pages also works by establishing a consensus, particularly for changes like these that affect large numbers of articles. As far as I can tell, no discussion has ever taken place whether we should be doing this until now, aside from strictly dissenting voices on the editor's talk page and elsewhere. Moreover, the editor in question appears to be perfectly willing to continue to edit war to see his own opinion prevail (case in point: , ), and he has already been blocked once for precisely this issue. Single-purpose accounts that make these sort of edits en masse, without discussion, and in spite of warnings and blocks, raise the red flag of fanaticism, and clearly are disruptive, and not generally tolerated under Misplaced Pages policy. I agree that there is a case to be made on either side of this discussion, but that is a discussion that should have taken place before this massive number of edits, not afterwards. Finally, I think our disagreement here may conceal a certain amount of agreement: I favor a case-by-case approach to editing, in which reliable sources are accurately represented. This seems to be consistent with your view as well. But this wave of editing smacks of ideology rather than careful weighing of available sources, and I think deserves scrutiny from the broader community. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree that we should consider individual cases, based on reliable sources, rather than making these decisions en masse. Vadim G. Vizing‎ clearly should be listed as Ukrainian, for instance. He may have been educated in Siberia, but he was born in the Ukraine, struggled to return to the Ukraine, did return, spent most of his career in the Ukraine, and has continued to live there after Ukraine became a country. Mark Kac is another very questionable case, though, perhaps even more so than Drinfeld: what about him is Ukrainian? The town he was born in is now Ukrainian, but at his birth it was part of the Russian Empire and for most of the time he lived there it was Polish. He grew up as a Pole and was educated as a Pole. The fact that his birthplace is Ukrainian now is an accident of history related to the Soviet annexation in 1939 and has nothing to do with Kac, who was by then already in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with both your statements (about Vadim G. Vizing‎ and Mark Kac). Note that the entry Mark Kac is protected from further editing, though.Jsqqq777 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I found changing Fedor Bogatyrchuk from Ukraine to Soviet a bit disconcerting considering he was in various Ukranian nationalist organizations and sided with the Nazis against Russia. I think the model to follow is given by Colin Maclaurin which says UK citizenship and Scottish nationality in his infobox. I also had a look at William Rowan Hamilton but it doesn't give either citizenship or nationality, if it was done this way I guess UK citizen and Irish nationality would be right. According to Jsqqq777 's criteria though he shouldn't even be described as Irish since Ireland didn't exist as a separate country during his lifetime. Dmcq (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As has been already discussed, there are no hard criteria here, only case-by-case analysis. For instance, Fedor Bogatyrchuk should indeed be listed as Ukrainian. Jsqqq777 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I was proposing a way forward, not asking you to behave like you are an arbiter of what's okay or ignoring what I say. Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I am behaving as a participant of the discussion, same as you. Jsqqq777 (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
You are an editor who was blocked and causes disruption despite warnings and needs to change their behaviour. I am pointing out a possible way of doing the job without ausing so much trouble, or are you just interested in causing disruption? Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
As (hopefully) yourself, I am interested in correct and verifiable statements in Misplaced Pages. Perhaps if you formulate your proposed way explicitly, it would be easier to discuss it.Jsqqq777 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is some possible problems I think the model to follow is given by Colin Maclaurin which says UK citizenship and Scottish nationality in his infobox. That has chopped out some extra statements from what I said above, is it explicit enough for you now? Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for chopping out extra statements -- yes, it is explicit enough for me. I think it would be untenable to have a unified model (hard rule) for all the cases, so it'd more productive to examine each case on its own merits.Jsqqq777 (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well lets try a simple case then. Ff you came across Colin Maclaurin and he just had nationality Scottish would you think it was right to remove the Scottish and replace it with UK or British? Dmcq (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
No, I would not.Jsqqq777 (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that should about cover all the people who one might consider Ukranian, mainly in that they spoke Ukranian as their main language I would guess. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
If a person indeed (verifiably) uses/used Ukrainian as his/her main language, I personally would not have any problems in labeling him/her Ukrainian. Obviously, that's just my opinion.Jsqqq777 (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

How does "requested articles" work?

The box at the top of this page lists some "requested articles". However, if you click on "more", it shows entirely different articles. And if you follow the link further to Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Russia it again shows a different set of articles. How exactly does this system work? Where in these 3 places should new requests be nominated? How to get the nominations appear in the box on this page? Offliner (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

They are transcluded from Portal:Russia/Things you can do. A second set exists in Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Russia, which was supposed to be transcluded into Misplaced Pages:Requested_articles/Other_categorization_schemes#Russia, but isn't. So we have indeed three sets in total. :-) --Illythr (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Russia

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as the banner of this project is on the article talk page. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Kengir uprising FAR

I have nominated Kengir uprising for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. JJ98 (Talk) 06:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Council of People's Commissars and Council of Ministers of the USSR are the same

Harrypotter, a well-established user says the Council of People's Commissars and the Council of Ministers were to different articles, therefor the commissariats and ministries should have their own respective articles. This is false, the Soviet law says the Council of People's Commissars was "transformed", but never say they dissolved the Council of People's Commissars and created a new executive branch, known as the Council of Ministers of the USSR. It says transformed, and it says that for a reason. When the law says it was transformed, and modern scholars say renamed, the people's commissariats and the ministry should have one article, not two. Second, sources are already scarce, and the duty and responsibilities, organisation and the structure of the People's Commissariats and Soviet ministries remained fundamentally unchanged in their 70 years of existence. The only major changes came under Mikhail Gorbachev, but by that time the organisation was known as the Ministry, and not People's Commissariat. I want to reach an agreement with fellow wikiproject participants to stop Harrypotter from creating articles, with text copied from the Ministry article, and create a nearly identical page for the commissariats. Can somebody help me with this? --TIAYN (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

More eyes needed at 2010 Chechen Parliament attack

More eyes needed at 2010 Chechen Parliament attack. A misguided editor inserted heaps of Kavkazcenter material in the article, etc. Offliner (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Death anomalies

Hi, We have a number of anomalies where people are dead on RU wiki but not here on EN wiki. In some cases it would really help if a Russian speaker could check Russian language sources for the individuals concerned. Would anyone here be willing to lend a hand? Incidentally if any of you are active on RU wiki, it would be nice to get them to request an anomaly report at meta:Death_anomalies_table as there are bound to be some articles on RU wiki which still have people as living when on another language we have them as dead. ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of the anomalies seem to be due to different approaches. Abdul-Malik al-Houthi's article, for example, says that he potentially may still be alive, while the Russian wiki simply lists him as dead. With Brothers Hildebrandt, one of the brothers died in 2006, which is why the Russian Misplaced Pages lists the article in its "Died in 2006" category; the English Misplaced Pages mentions one of the brothers' death but assigns the article to no such category. I suspect a lot of discrepancies are going to be of this nature. Any suggestions what to do when the discrepancy is not obvious?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2010; 16:39 (UTC)
Hi Ezhiki, the report isn't ideal for dealing with articles about two people rather than one, especially if one is dead and the other isn't. Where we have one article describing someone as missing presumed dead and the other as missing then we also get anomalies, though sometimes they can be fixed by adding some sourced info to one or other article. We have several anomalies against FR wiki re early twentieth century sportspeople about whom nothing is known since they were in their twenties. The French assume someone who would be in their nineties is dead and we assume they are alive unless they'd be the oldest person recorded. But I was hoping for help on ones like Richard Goldstone (ru:Умершие в 1938 году) who looks to me like a category error on RU wiki. Valeri Dikaryov (ru:Умершие в 2001 году), Valeri Kravchenko (ru:Умершие в 1995 году), Vasili Postnov (ru:Умершие в 2009 году), Vladimir Ulanov (ru:Умершие в 2000 году) and Zakaria Mohieddin (ru:Умершие в 2009 году / uk:Померли 2009) Most of whom probably are dead but we may need Russian sources to confirm it. Regards ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
OK then. I have fixed Goldstone (his dob was recorded in the dod field of the infobox, which generates the dob/dod categories using those fields). I'll go through the rest of people in your list as well, but the problem is that the Russian Misplaced Pages is notorious for not citing its sources (Dikaryov is one example). Many articles would have the death date, but no source, which makes the whole endeavor mostly moot. My recommendation would be to leave just those articles for which the dod is sourced, and seek sources for other discrepancies elsewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 22, 2010; 19:11 (UTC)
Thanks Ezhik, as I said we've done 90% of these and the ones left are often the most difficult. If the Russian article has a sourced death date then usually someone has tried to understand it with Google translate. But I'm hoping that as well as fixing anomalies like Goldstone, this project might have people with access to Russian language sources which I'm hoping the RU wiki articles had used even if they didn't cite them. ϢereSpielChequers 20:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

FV Athena

I've created the FV Athena article. Are the linked pages from this website relevant to the history of this ship, which appears to have suffered its third fire today. Text is all in Russian, so it's a bit beyond me and Google translate. Mjroots (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University)

Perhaps some of you would be able to help at Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University) where there is a dispute about wikilinking of dates, inclusion or exclusion from categories, the name of the university and how it is expressed, and other matters. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Praskovya Ivanovskaya

The article Praskovya Ivanovskaya has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found a few minor mentions of the subject in published (gBooks) works, also a Russian language artice is not found using the given spelling "Прасковья Ивановская". Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

ru:Национальный исследовательский ядерный университет «МИФИ»ru:Московский инженерно-физический институт (Национальный исследовательский ядерный университет)

Please, somebody rename this article as it done in Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (National Research Nuclear University). First naming is brend or “also known as”. The both names are official and shown at official website Template:Ru icon official website. See, the name «Московский инженерно-физический институт (Национальный исследовательский ядерный университет)» uses here: first top line: «Устав государственного образовательного учреждения высшего профессионального образования «„Московский инженерно-физический институт (Национальный исследовательский ядерный университет)“»
The problem is one: I'm block at Russian Misplaced Pages and can't change it myself.
Thank You. --Ksaine (user talk · user contributions) 17:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories: