Jump to content

User talk:David Kernow/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Krais of Russia

Hi, David. I have moved Territories of Russia back to Krais of Russia. The issue of renaming krais to territories and oblasts to provinces had been previously considered and the community decided not to make the switch. I'll provide you with links a bit later. If you still feel the current usage is inadequate, I suggest you list all involved articles at WP:RM. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ëzhiki,
...I have moved Territories of Russia back to Krais of Russia. The issue of renaming krais to territories and oblasts to provinces had been previously considered and the community decided not to make the switch.
Thanks; as I've just noted at WP:CfD, I didn't realise I'd wandered into an area where the consensus is/was to use non-English terms. Apologies!
I'll provide you with links a bit later.
No need, but thanks for offer.
If you still feel the current usage is inadequate, I suggest you list all involved articles at WP:RM.
I would say that if non-English terms are to be used, then for the sake of consistency (and education) the correct non-English plurals should also be used. Hence I'll be requesting moves to Kraia of Russia and Oblasti of Russia respectively – unless these should be Kraya of Russia and Oblasty of Russia or something else...?  (Also, subyekty or subyekti or something else...?)  Thanks, David Kernow 13:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, David. I know you said not to bother, but since I already dug two links, here they are, if only for curiosity sake:
These, especially the second, might be very useful for reference, so I'm grateful to have them; thanks.
As for using the non-native plurals, I'd have to disagree. The word "oblast", for example, while comes directly from Russian, can be pluralized as "oblasts". Merriam-Webster (and, by others' accounts, a host of other dictionaries) actually has an entry for this word, and it lists both variants of plural (oblasts and oblasti) as acceptable in English. Surely, "oblasts" sounds more intuitive to native speakers? Plus, it would involve a lot of work to change all instances of "oblasts" to "oblasti", with only a marginal benefit (if any). "Oblast", "krai", and "okrug" are all listed in the English section of my English-Russian-English Oxford dictionary (I don't have other reference handy at the moment, but I can check other dictionaries later), so they must be acceptable in English and subject to English grammar norms as well.
Please let me know what you think. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood. I'm not a crusade for non-English words to use their non-English plurals; it's just my first thought when I come by such mixed instances. I'm more interested in the bigger picture, not least for the sake of this which should soon see more light of day; I've been checking through it as best I can and at present have reached Sri Lanka, though putting Russia and a couple of other more complicated situations to one side. If you have a moment and can scan, spot and amend any errors that must (still) be within, I'd be very grateful (again!). Yours, David 14:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This is quite interesting; thanks for asking me to review it. Unfortunately, I can't really offer you much input on administrative divisions of countries other than Russia—I'm too narrowly specialized, I'm afraid.
As for the term "national administrative subdivisions", I am kind of uneasy with the "subdivisions" part. I usually prefer just "administrative divisions", although even in case with Russia it's hard to avoid using the term "subdivisions" altogether (Subdivisions of Russia, for example, describes some non-administrative divisions, such as economic regions, as well as administrative ones). I realize, however, that while we had plenty of critics advocating to abandon this term, all of them failed to propose an adequate replacement. I guess we'd just have to wait for an insight :)
I too am uncertain about "divisions" vs. "subdivisions" but for the time being am using the latter as "division" is itself a translation for a type of (sub)division and thus far I haven't found the same for "subdivision"!  Once I've finished working through the table as best I can, however, I'm planning to throw this query open – plus the question of whether or not "(sub)divisions" ought to be qualified in the kinds of articles you mention, e.g. "Administrative (sub)divisions of Russia" vs. the current "Subdivisions in Russia", to allow "Political (sub)divisions" or "Electoral (sub)divisions", etc. First, though, I'm aiming to release the table for general comment and proofreading.
Anyway, thanks for your responses and tips. I'm sure we'll eventually bump into each other on another occasion again :) Of course, should you have any questions about Russian administrativia, you are always welcome to contact me—I'll do my best to help. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tip

Also, David, I don't know if you got a chance to run into Tobias Conradi yet, but he is interested in exactly the same thing you are trying to do—standardizing the conventions for naming of national administrative divisions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

...yes, he's helped me understand some of the issues involved in national administrative subdivisions (do you think that name describes the topic accurately?) and as with yourself above I'll be asking him to cast his eye over the above.

Here are a few more links about Russia's administrative structure (apart from the top-level ones which you obviously are aware of). I don't know if you found them before; if not, hopefully they would be of some interest to you:

The reason why I give these to you is because I reviewed the Russia's line in your national administrative subdivisions list and found some subtle inaccuracies which these links should address. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much; as mentioned above, I'm only too aware that Russia is one of if not the most complex case as regards (sub)divisions and it was my attempt to start sorting out its entry in the table that led me to make the abortive CfD proposals earlier (yes, forgetting to check for any relevant talk-page history first!). With the links etc you've supplied I feel more confident that I'll find the information I'll need to reach a completed entry, but will let you know if I hit any impasses and/or when I think the entry is complete. Thanks again, David 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


"Subdivisions of..."

Hi again Ëzhiki,
Thought you might wish to respond to this query – apologies if this page already on your watchlist. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, David! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. While I do indeed have this page on my watchlist, I don't usually follow it too closely. I would have missed your post there had it not been for your note above. I have provided a brief comment on that page; feel free to let me know if you have any questions (I'll make sure to watch the discussion more closely that I used to). Again, thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion as continued on Ëzhiki's talk page#"Subdivisions of..."

Thanks for adding your thoughts here; I'm letting some time pass to give Tobias and anyone else the opportunity to respond as well.

Meanwhile, I have returned to the "chestnut" that is (administrative) subdivisions of Russia and read some of the material you commended to me. It's intriguing to note that – so far as I've seen – Russia is the only country on the English Wikipedia not to have some sort of system of English names for its (administrative) subdivisional terms. Furthermore, given the sentiments you reported, this surprises me – coupled with the levels indicated in the rest of the article plus the other Russian subdivision articles, it appears to provide such a system:

  • federalnyye okruga
    • subyekty
      consisting of:
    • oblasti (sing. oblast)}}
    • respubliki
    • avtonomnyye okruga
    • kraia  (or kraya)
    • federalnyye goroda
    • avtonomnaya oblast
      • rayony
      • goroda
      • posyolki gorodskogo tipa
        • selsoviet, selsovet
        • ?
        • ?
        • vnutrigorodskoy rayon

voyenny okrug  (what level/s?)

military district

* The distinction between "province" (oblast) and "historical province" (провинция) can be made...?

I'm not thinking (or advocating) that every "N Oblast", "M Okrug" etc article is renamed, but that English equivalents along the lines of the above might be given at an overview level. What am I missing or have not understood...?  Thanks, David 01:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

PS I note some of these translations are already in use in e.g. Federal subjects of Russia.

PPS I also note these (?second-level) transliterations given near the bottom of this page at statoids.com: natsional'nyy rayon; ostrov; pgt [sic!]; gorsovet; Natsional'naya Volost'.

(The three/four levels of administrative divisions)

Hi, David! Welcome (again) to the immense mess fun that are the Russian subdivisions :)
You mostly got the gist of things, but not quite. Here are the most important points you need to keep in mind:
1. On the federal level, there is really only one type of administrative division—federal subjects. All federal subjects have more less equal status within the Federation, with Republics having somewhat more autonomy than other types of federal subjects, and with Autonomous Okrugs (except Chukotka) simultaneously being federal subjects and parts of other federal subjects. The list of federal subjects is defined by the Constitution of Russia.
2. Federal districts are in effect groups of federal subjects. Each federal district has a representative (envoy) appointed by the President of Russia, who oversees the federal subjects, and whose prime tasks are to ensure the compliance of regional administrations with the federal legislature and to report the political and economic status of the regions back to the President. Federal districts are not a part of the Russian administrative division.
Understood; if the first administrative level is the "federal" level (?federalny) and the second "district" (raion), is there a label for the third...?  ("council" level?)'
Not quite. True, the top administrative level is federal (federal government, that is). Next level is that of the federal subjects. Then go districts (raions), and only then selsovets. I usually refer to the last level as "selsovet-level", which is technically correct, but I doubt the term per se is officially established in Russian (Russian legalese has ways of explaining simple things with multi-story bureaucroslang). The only place in official Russian documents that I can think of off the top of my head is the 2002 Census results, where this level was referred to as "rural administrations" (with a footnote describing the most common types, such as selsovets, rural okrugs, etc.). I doubt there is an established term in English, besides the common-sense ones (in which case "selsovet-level", "rural administration level", or "rural council level" should work just fine).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay; informally, "(federal) – subject – district – council" would seem to label the four levels satisfactorily (in English)...?  ("Council" rather than "rural" for the fourth level as it appears to contain urban areas...)
Yes, this should work. As for the "rural council", it's in fact always "rural". An urban-type settlement (or even a town) may serve as an administrative center of a selsovet, but it would never be a part of it. By their own nature selsovets only include rural areas (selsovet is short for selsky sovet, where selsky means "rural".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... but if my current understanding of point 4 below is correct, the city districts/okrugs on the "selsovet" (fourth) level are neither "rural" nor necessarily associated with "council"s, so either of the English descriptions "rural level" or "council level" for the fourth (selsovet) level could be misleading...?
True; I didn't think of it. However, let me explain why it is. The "administrative levels" are just a convenient tool to classify the administrative divisions of Russia; it shouldn't be taken too literally. In real life, it does not matter one bit if selsovets and city districts are located on the same level, or on different levels, or on different but equivalent levels of the administrative hierarchy. Taxes, budgeting, local self-government, and other important issues are all different for selsovets and city districts. The only time when it is important to specify the level is for classification. Russian Committee on Statistics, for example, is the agency in charge of publishing and updating the so-called Russian Classification on Objects [of] Administrative Division (OKATO), which lists all administrative units starting with federal subjects all the way down to selsovets. Each administrative unit is assigned an eight-digit code, where the first two digits specify the federal subject, the next three—the district (or equivalent), and the last three—the selsovet (or equivalent); so, for example, Rovnensky Selsovet of Balakhtinsky District of Krasnoyarsk Krai is coded as 04 204 816 (the system is actually more complicated than this, but it should give you the idea). In terms of that document, selsovets and city districts have equal status, but in real life this equivalence is simply of no importance to anybody.
With this in mind, I guess "level 4" or "the bottom level" is the best we can call it. The OKATO document calls them "third level of classification" (they are omitting the federal level, which is only coded within CIS documents). I can't really think of anything better, can you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"The "administrative levels" are just a convenient tool..." – or, as with something as extensive as Russia, a contrivance I'm all too aware may be taken too far; viz. looking for possible shorthand "names" for these abstract levels in addition to their numbering. Per your OKATO info above – and your correction of my level renumbering at Subdivisions of Russia; thank you! – I've now made/restored the subjects as the first level units in the table and similarly promoted the other two levels, moving mention of the federal districts to a footnote.

(Similarities between federal subjects' subdivision)

3. The administrative division structure of each and every federal subject is not defined on the federal level. It is completely up to the federal subject to decide what that structure is going to be. The only reason why the internal structures of all federal subjects are so similar is because they all date back to the Soviet system. In general, a federal subject is divided into raions (districts), with each raion's administration reporting to the federal subject's administration. Larger cities and towns also tend to be put under direct jurisdiction of the federal subjects; which effectively equals their status with that of the raions. Smaller towns and urban-type settlements (see more on those below) are usually under jurisdiction of the raions on whose territory they are located. Villages are usually grouped into selsovets, which also report back to their raion administration. All that said, it's important to remember that this structure is just an overview—each federal subject is set up differently (compare, for example administrative divisions of Adygea with administrative divisions of the Altai Republic). The criteria defining the status of city/town, for instance, are different in every federal subject.
"The only reason why the internal structures of all federal subjects are so similar is because they all date back..." – now noted; sorry not to realiz/se earlier!

("Districts", "municipalities")

4. City districts exist in larger cities. They are located on the same administrative level as selsovets, although, of course, they are not at all the same thing.
Okay; that seems to figure with the above and the table.
I should have written "same administrative level as raions", not selsovets. Must have got distracted. Sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem; have moved "[city districts]" accordingly (I think!) in the table. What would the transliterated Russian for "city district" and "city districts" be?  (Thanks!)
First, I should note that I really shouldn't be writing any sort of comments before I wake up. "Same levels as selsovets" was right to begin with. "Same level as raions" is only true for the federal cities. I'm sorry to create needless work for you. I assure you that I triple-checked my facts before posting this particular comment :)
Anyway, to answer your question—some cities are divided into city districts while others—into city okrugs. There is no real difference between the two, except for the name (not unlike there is not much difference between selsovets and "rural administrations"). "City district" is "(внутри)городской район" ((vnutri)gorodskoy ra[y/i]on); "(внутри)городские районы" ((vnutri)gorodskiye ra[y/i]ony) in "undefined" plural (when the precise number is not specified). "City okrug" is "(внутри)городской округ" ((vnutri)gorodskoy okrug); "(внутри)городские округа" ((vnutri)gorodskiye okruga) in "undefined" plural.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So, you're human as well! <chuckle> If I understand correctly, the only "city districts" on the "district"/raion (third) level are the federal city districts (federalnyye gorodskiye raiony, sing. federalnyye gorodskoy raion...?); other city districts/okrugs are on the selsovet (fourth) level...?
I'm busted, eh? :) Your understanding is correct though. The only thing is that the federal cities' districts are not called federalnyye gorodskiye rayony—see administrative divisions of Moscow and administrative divisions of Saint Petersburg for details.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I note that Administrative divisions of St. Petersburg uses that word "municipal" in its English descriptions; nonetheless, I've tried to amend the federal cities section of the table entry accordingly, though yet not in (fully-)transliterated Russian. To do so, I'm imagining (via your earlier reply above) that:
  • Moscow's "city administrative district/s" = (vnutri)gorodskoy okrug (sing.) / (vnutri)gorodskiye okruga
  • St. P's "city district/s" = (vnutri)gorodskoy raion (sing.) / (vnutri)gorodskiye raiony
    • Moscow's "district/s" = [(vnutri)gorodskoy]? raion (sing.) / [(vnutri)gorodskiye]? raiony
    • St. P's:
"municipal (?cities and) towns" = X gorod (sing.) / X goroda
"municipal settlements" = ?sing. / X posyolki gorodskogo tipa...?
"municipal districts" = X okrug (sing.) / X okruga
The word "municipal" was chosen by the Saint Petersburg government, not by me. Why that was their choice, I don't know, but perhaps it was to create more apparent parallels between the administrative units and the municipalities (the borders of which match precisely).
As for the equivalencies, you got them exactly right.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Great – perhaps there will be a first version of the table after all! <chuckle> Two follow-on queries, however: (1) If "municipal" is the word used by St. Petersburg, what is its Russian version X above; and (2) I also meant to confirm what the "vnutri" prefixes mean – "administrative"...?  (I don't reckon so...)
...For the time being, am using "municipalnye" for "муниципальные" and "obrazovaniya posyolki" for "образования посёлки". I'm assuming these are undefined plural. If all this correct (!) I'd appreciate the singular forms rather than push my luck with Cyrillic even further – thanks, David 00:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[resetting indentation]

Munitsipalnyye would be a better transliteration for "муниципальные" (as per WP:RUS, as well as for consistency with other transliterations already used in the table). This is indeed "undefined plural" (I wish I knew the precise grammatical term); masculine singular is "муниципальный" (munitsipalny). "Obrazovaniya posyolki" is completely incorrect. "Munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya—posyolki" is literally translated as "municipal entities—settlements", and "obrazovaniya posyolki" literally means "entities settlements", which, of course, makes no sense at all (I understand that you don't speak Russian, so the mistake is perfectly understandable; plus, I should have replied sooner so you wouldn't have to play the exciting game of Cyrillic roulette :)). The singular form for "municipal settlements" is "муниципальное образование — посёлок" (munitsipalnoye obrazovaniye—posyolok). To answer the rest of your questions: "vnutri-" means "intra-" (lit. "inside"), but is usually omitted during translation (I've never seen "intracity districts" applied to Russian cities). Also the term "(vnutri)gorodskiye" is not officially applied to the administrative okrugs of Moscow and to the districts of St. Petersburg, although it can, of course, be used to describe what they are. I would suggest to remove this term from the federal cities' line of the table altogether. Same goes for the districts of Moscow (they are simply "rayony", not "vnutrigorodskiye rayony").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem re the few hours before your latest – for which thanks – just keeping you entertained updated as regards changes. The table now sports "okruga" and "raiony" for Moscow's divisions; and "raiony" and "munitsipalnyye okruga"/"mun(itsipalnyye) obrazovaniya"/"munitsipalnyye goroda" for St. Petersburg, each with an extra footnote. I hope this might mean the Russian entry is ready for debut!  Yours, David. Replies at this indentation at 00:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
PS re a possible English distinction between "okrug" and "raion", how about "circle" and "district"...?
PPS Would an amendment of the Russian in Administrative divisions of Saint Petersburg's infobox be in order, viz. to "муниципальные города" and "муниципальные посёлки" (i.e. removing the seemingly misleading "образования"); and removing "административные" from Administrative divisions of Moscow's infobox, replacing "city administrative okrugs" with "okrugs" ("circles"!)...?
I have reviewed the table (or, better, "The Table"), and made some minor corrections. The Russian line is ready to be published. Please review and let me know if anything is still unclear.
Thank you – I think this means the first version of "The Table" <cue music effect> is virtually ready for debut!  I've abbreviated the longer names to avoid wraparound, placing their unabbreviated versions in the footnotes. I've also replaced the &mdash;s with colons (see below); hope this acceptable. Thanks too for your comments around the incorrect footnotes; I immediately realised I'd mistakenly duplicated one for another, etc. I think (hope) they are now correct.
Re P.S.: "circle" conveys the meaning somewhat (although the Russian word to describe the circle proper is not "okrug", and okrugs are not really circular), but it is not a term I saw used anywhere. Like I previously said, we need to use the English terminology that has already been established elsewhere; we cannot invent new terms, and this one seems to be a quite radical invention. Unfortunately, the best of the most common ways to refer to Russian okrugs are "district" and "okrug", the former being preferrable, but creating numerous ambiguities in a project with the scope of Wikipedia ("districts of XXX autonomous district" is a good example). I wish there were another English term for "okrug" that we could use; unfortunately, there isn't one (I scoured mounds of literature in search of one, but to no avail).
Yes; 'twas just another passing thought. Ironically, however – for those even more interested in corresponding English terms – I think the "administrativnyye" and "munitsipalnyye" (and, at the subject level, "avtonomnyy") together serve to disambiguate the various okruga and raiony...
Re P.P.S.: amending the infobox is not preferrable, because the Russian terms used there are actually the ones used in official documents. Simplified terms may be easier to comprehend, but they will not be entirely accurate. I am not a big fan of "entities" myself, but Russian bureaucracy is very fond of using overgeneric words where a simple definition would suffice. Same goes for Moscow—the okrugs there are "administrative", not just "okrugs". Sorry!
No problem, per the above; I think, however, that the linewraps in the St. Petersburg infobox might mislead someone else not conversant in Russian (but still intrigued by it). Would I be creating an error if I reformatted these as "муниципальные образования: города", "муниципальные образования: посёлки" and "муниципальные образования: (муниципальные) округа"...?
No meaning is going to be lost if we are to replace m-dashes with semicolons, but technically it is incorrect to use semicolons in Russian in that particular construct. These are really fine points of Russian grammar, though, which many native speakers would easily screw up (me not being an exception). Official designations use m-dashes, so I guess we'd better stick to that if we are to call ourselves encyclopedia-builders and not hopeless amateurs :) That said, if you have other suggestions on how to improve the layout of the infobox (or of the whole article), go right ahead. I know perfectly well that the current layout sucks, but am unable to come up with anything better.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Finally, I have a question about what you are planning to do about all those plurals. 10+ munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya is simply incorrect in Russian (it should be 10+ munitsipalnykh obrazovaniy). I can certainly correct these for you, but perhaps writing munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya: 10 would be a better solution? People interested in The Table from the content point of view are unlikely to be interested in the finer points of Russian grammar, but leaving incorrect grammar doesn't sound like a good idea either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree; my pattern is plurals for "The Table" and singulars for (if I may coin a highly-original term) "The List". Rather than ask you to trawl your way through the wikicode again – and also as I'm more likely to recall something of them – I think a little list/table of the relevant plural and singular transliterations of Moscow and St. P's types of divisions should enable me to update both Table and List – thanks!
Nearly there, David 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll put this list on your talk page as to not overload this thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

("Non-administrative" divisions)

5. Military okrugs are not a part of the administrative division. They are set up separately. Same goes for economic regions, zones, and macrozones, which are used for economic and statistical purposes only.
6. Speaking of those types of divisions, they are exactly the reason why you can't rename Subdivisions of Russia to "Administrative subdivisions of Russia"—the article covers all types of subdivisions, not just administrative ones.
The administrative subdivisions seem to be prevalent; perhaps create a separate article Administrative subdivisions of Russia linked to the remaining Non-administrative subdivisions of Russia (to which Military districts of Russia etc redirected, at least for time being)...?
This proposal makes sense to me in general, except that I really dislike the title "Non-administrative (sub)divisions of Russia". Additionally, I don't believe the division of Russian (pardon the pun) divisions into "administrative" and "non-administrative" is established in English academic works, so the title may border on original research. The least we can do, of course, is to raise this question at Talk:Subdivisions of Russia and let the Russians know. I can pretty much guarantee though that apart from me and Tobias not many people would show up :)
"Non-administrative subdivisions of Russia": Yes, I'm not exactly enamoured of it either, so in lieu of it I guess "X subdivisions of Russia" articles for all other types of subdivision would need to sit beside it (Military subdivisions of Russia, Economic subdivisions of Russia, etc). Meanwhile, I see the Administrative subdivisions of Russia article being, in effect, a disambiguation page linking to Historical administrative subdivisions of Russia and Contemporary administrative subdivisions of Russia. (Perhaps the military/economic/etc subdivision articles might also need historical and contemporary "subarticles"...?  (Plus, therefore – not seriously – Subdivisions of articles on subdivisions of Russia...?...!))
Re raising this kind of proposal at Talk:Subdivisions of Russia and the portal, any advice on an effective way to proceed...?  (Thanks!)
The original idea was to turn the Subdivisions of Russia into a generalized overview without excessive details and lists, but with links to the main articles. The easiest thing to do is probably to organize existing contents under two main headers—"Administrative" and "non-administrative" divisions, and put the subsections within them. I think "Non-administrative divisions of Russia" (for the lack of better term) works a lot better as a section title than as a title of a separate article. The historical and contemporary aspects can then be addressed via further subsections. I'm not sure if it's going to be any less confusing than a spider net of articles and disambigs pointing to each other, but we can at least give it a try (it doesn't look terribly difficult and does not require too many changes to the existing scheme), and if it doesn't work, we can always try dedicated disambigs. What do you think? If we try this first, there is no need to worry about informing all potentially interested parties—the changes are not going to be all that radical, and those who are genuinely interested are bound to notice the changes through their watchlists.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; shall I give it a go, so you may then notice the mistakes/misunderstandings a "general encyclopedia user" (layman) might bring, or perhaps you'd prefer to reorganiz/se it first, followed by comments from said layman (and those watching)...?
Go ahead, I'll correct whatever wrongs I spot. You'll probably get a better overall understanding of the system via a hands-on experience, and I'll make sure no harm is done in the process.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, will do so anon.
But why anon?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Apologies for ambiguity; I meant "anon" as in "soon". Make that "soonish" now!

("Urban-type", "municipal")

7. Posyolki gorodskogo tipa (pgt) is best translated as urban-type settlements, not as "urban settlements". The former is the specific term to define pgt; the latter is the term used to describe cities/towns and urban-type settlements as a group. "Municipalities" is an especially poor choice (see more on that below).
Yes, given point 10 below, "municipality" looks as if it'll need to be reserved!  Meanwhile, however, "urban-type settlement" seems cumbersome; are "borough" or (perhaps less likely) "township" possibilities...?
Problem is, we can't just pick up any term that sounds remotely suitable. All of the English terms currently used to describe Russian administrative divisions are more or less commonly used outside of Wikipedia. Sometimes those terms may not be the most common, but we use them here to avoid ambiguity and conflicts with other similar terms (like I said, this is a global project; we need to be careful). Outside of Wikipedia, pgts are referred to as "(small) towns", "townlets", "settlements", "(large) villages", "urban villages", "urban-type communities", "urban-type settlements", "urban settlements", and "townships". I've never seen a pgt called a "borough". "Township" might have been my distant second choice, but I actually had a pretty long discussion with Ukrainians (I know you've been looking for more ridiculously long discussions to read on this subject, hehe :))), where, among many other things, I explained why "urban-type settlement" works better than "township" (in brief—the former is mostly FSU-specific while still being an English term, and the latter is not very common and primarily means other things—"oblast" wouldn't be your first choice when translating the English word "province", just as "pgt" wouldn't be your first choice when translating the English word "township"). All in all, the consensus was in favor of using the term "urban-type settlement", although as you may see it was not overwhelming (Ukrainians originally preferred "town").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood – as with "Non-administrative subdivisions" above, I'm not convinced by either "borough" or "township"; I was wondering what you'd make of them. There are other countries with subdivisions whose English version is less than straightforward, so "urban-type settlement" isn't alone.
Yeah, about that—what other countries pose difficulties similar to Russia? I've always wondered about that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
You should find some – hopefully most, if not all – among the footnotes to the table and here.
OK, I'll take a look. It's just that there are too many footnotes there for me to find my bearings easily :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"municipal townships", "separate towns", "urban communities", "metropolitan municipalities", "communal sections", "district municipalities", "city municipalities", "urban townships" etc – think of any combination and it's likely to've been used!  (Perhaps the most self-redundant/desperate/abstruse I've seen is "communal communes" – yes, apparently it exists!)
10. None of the English Wikipedia articles dealing with Russian administrative divisions takes into consideration the ongoing municipal reform. The purpose of the reform is to guarantee the right to the local self-government (as defined by the Constitution) and to establish corresponding organs to provide means to excersise said self-government. The reform's goal is to establish a set of municipalities on the territory of the Russian Federation. The municipalities are formed on the basis of existing administrative units, and will eventually replace them. The terminology used to define municipal units, however, is different from that used to define administrative divisions, with the term "municipality" playing a major role (which is why it is such a poor choice to describe any administrative divisions).
Now understood per reply to point 7 above; thanks for insight.

(Third administrative level, etc)

8. "Selsov(i)et" is usually translated as "rural district/council", but it extremely hard to translate in the bigger scheme of things. There are over a dozen different names used by different federal subjects to name their selsovet-level administrative units.
If "selsovi/et" is an appropriate Russian umbrella term, "rural district" seems an appropriate English equivalent – so long as the 'umbrella' nature of "selsovi/et" made evident...?
It's not really an umbrella term ("rural administration" is used more in the generic sense), it's just the most common name for this type of administrative division (there are more "selsovets" than there are other same-level units called by all other names combined). Either "rural administration" or "rural district" (and possibly other variants) should work fine as an explanatory translation, as long as they are used consistently and an explanation is made for what they really are.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Understood (and as suspected); I'll try to keep this in mind. Subdivisions of Russia#Lower level divisions, however, appears to list "Towns and urban/rural settlements under the jurisdiction of the district"; "City/town districts" (conflicts with point 4 above?); and "Urban settlements districts [sic]" as separate from selsoviets; is this correct...?  If so, I'd be grateful to know the transliterations for these phrases; thanks!  Also, having just revisited Subdivisions of Russia, I see it treats the "subject" level rather than the federal districts as the first level of subdivisions (hence the "district" level as the second and the "council" level as the third); suggest this is amended according to point 2 above...?
Thanks for making me to finally re-read Subdivisions of Russia. I've just copyedited it, hopefully getting rid of the remnants of non-standard terminology, inconsistencies, and plain old errors. The "Translation" table probably needs to be re-written—if I remember correctly Tobias snatched it from my worksheet long before it was usable. Now it's prettily formatted, but still a mix of all kinds of related and unrelated things.
To address your questions:
1. Federal subjects may have some cities/towns and urban-type settlements under their direct jurisdiction, and have other towns and urban-type settlements under the jurisdiction of the raions. This is not at all uncommon.
Okay; this seems to confirm my latest query at point 4 above ("federal city districts" are "district"/raion level; other "city districts" are selsovet level);
2. Given how the difference between a city and a town is defined here, there is no such thing as "town district". Only cities with population well over 100K are divided into districts/okrugs. As for the level of city districts, I corrected the point 4 above. Again, sorry for the confusion!
So, hope the above is still correct;
It is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
3. "Urban settlement districts" were added by... (drum roll, please) ...me. It was in 2004, and I honestly have no idea what I was thinking back then. Urban-type settlements are never divided into districts; they are just too small. Since back then I wasn't sure what English terminology to use and, of course, had no developed infrastructure such as we have now, it's possible that I was thinking of microdistricts, inventing a new English term along the way. Still, microdistricts do not belong to level 3 of Russian administrative divisions, so I removed this entry for good. What an embarassment! If there were only one thing I'd like to thank you for, it'd be helping me keep myself in check, lose some arrogance, and re-visit high-profile articles on administrative divisions every once in a while!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Glad to be of use to us both!
...I've now tweaked the table per my current understanding, to (continue to) indicate to you what may still be amiss. (I've kept the "autonomous okrugs" in the second ("subject") level to reflect their ascribed status; or is that misleading...?)
I've also amended the level numbering in "Subdivisions of Russia"; please revert/correct if necessary. Thanks for all!  David; replies at this indentation all at 22:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I made the corrections to Subdivisions of Russia. The "federal level" is that of the Federation (federal government), not that of the federal districts. Federal districts are not in fact a part of the administrative structure, although their murky status makes it hard to classify what kind of (sub)divisions they are.
As for the table, the entry on Russia it's still not entirely correct. Federal districts must go, because they are not part of administrative structure (the Russian Federation is not divided into federal districts, which in turn are divided into federal subjects; the Russian Federation is divided into federal subjects, which, in turn, are grouped into federal districts, economic regions, etc.). Also, I don't think I mentioned this before, but some cities/towns and urban-type settlements (closed ones, for the most part) are under direct jurisdiction of the federal government. This kind of puts them on the same level as federal subjects (from the classification point of view), but they certainly do not have the status equal to those of federal subjects. I am not sure how you could incorporate this into the table, if you choose to do so. Another quirk to brighten your day is that selsovets may be under jurisdiction of pretty much anything. There are selsovets under jurisdiction of closed settlements. There are selsovets under jurisdiction of district-level cities and those under jurisdiction of those cities' districts. There are selsovets under jurisdiction of the "bottom level" cities/towns and urban-type settlements. I probably forgot some, too. This is, as you might have guessed, due to the fact that the administrative and territorial structure is not mandated federally, but is decided locally at the federal subject level. Again, I don't know if you'd want to overcomplicate your table with such fine details, but I feel that you should be aware of them. If specific examples are going to be easier for you to understand all this, please let me know, I'll gladly provide you with some.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the above: as already mentioned above, the federal districts are now "footnoted" and subjects et al thereby promoted. Meanwhile, if those cities/towns/pgt under direct federal jurisdiction aren't regarded in Russia as equivalent to subjects (which, scale-wise, would seem to make sense) then I'd leave them as level 2. (I suppose a footnote clarifying this jurisdiction could be added, but is probably too much detail for the table.) Similarly as regards the selsovets, i.e. left at level 3. If all okay, the table then indicates that there are no fourth-level or smaller subdivisions; does that tally...?
My continued thanks for all your help!  David. Replies at this indentation all at 01:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
With the structure set up that way, there would indeed be no level four divisions. Selsovets can be decomposed into villages, and cities/towns/urban-type settlements—into microdistricts, but neither can be seen as separate administrative units (there is no "village government" for each village, and microdistricts are an urban planning concept, not the administrative one). So, the table should be fine by now as far as the Russian entry goes. Just in case, I'll take a fresh look at it by the end of this week and let you know if I spot anything still not entirely accurate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks; I feel by then it should be as ready for its debut as it might ever be. Yours, David. Replies at this indentation at 04:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
PS Hope you enjoyed your Labor Day weekend!
I did, thank you. Also, sorry for the delay with the response; I was jumping from one task onto another yesterday, and never got to post a response to your municipal questions above. Let me know if there is anything else that needs clarification. I'm planning to review the table's entry on Russia tomorrow if nothing interferes. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

(Oblast, "province")

9. Translating "oblast" as "province" is fine until you put things into historical perspective. The Russian word for "province" is провинция (provintsiya)—term used to describe both historical Russian provinces and modern and historical provinces of foreign countries. "Oblast" is a newer term, meaning essentially the same thing as "province", but... it's a different word. Provinces and oblasts co-existed in the 18th century Russia, which I am sure you are glad to hear, as it makes your work so much easier. Kidding... :)
Yes, per here!
Hmm, I didn't realize I had previously explained it in such detail.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Just for your reference if/when the next David Kernow rolls by...!!
Hehe, next time I'll let you two enlighten each other instead of wasting my precious time :)) Kidding, of course :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

(Distinguishing between contemporary and historical uses)

11. All in all, the existing terminology scheme seems to be the best solution that allows to look at Russian subdivisions from both historical and modern perspective. I did my best to select adequate terms for each administrative entitiy, avoiding possible conflicts (although some, such as "okrug"/"district" are so broad that the collisions of meaning are unavoidable). Term translations are extremely useful when one needs to explain the meaning. Explaining that "oblast is pretty much the same as province" is fine, but using the term "province" instead of "oblast" everywhere will lead to many problems. Other publications often select other terms to describe the same phenomena, or even resort to simple letter-to-letter transliteration (pgt being a good example). It's important to remember, however, that Wikipedia is different from most of those publications in its scope. If you write a book on modern administrative divisions of Russia, you are perfectly safe to talk about "provinces" of Russia, and to replace every instance of "okrug" with "district". Such approach, however, will eventually fail miserably in the global, all-encompassing project which is Wikipedia.
"All in all, the existing terminology scheme seems to be the best solution that allows to look at Russian subdivisions from both historical and modern perspective..." – Perhaps this is where progress lies; per the name for this list, my intention is to try to catalog/ue current subdivisional terms. (Hence I realise I ought to rename the table to "Current national administrative subdivisions by country" – !)  As regards Russia – and perhaps other relatively complex cases – how about a general article that distinguishes between current and historical uses, either delineating both itself or linking to "[Current/Contemporary] [administrative/etc] subdivisions of C" and "Historical [administrative/etc] subdivisions of C"...?  (Vodka, anyone?)
Vodka it is :) You know, long ago I tried to catalog just Russian terms (the historical records are available), and found out that actually going through each federal subject one by one from scratch and resolving the ambiguities and inconsistencies as they arise worked a lot better for me (although, of course, it required extra work). Thus, seeing how much progress you made on a much larger scale in a relatively short period of time is nothing short of a miracle to me. This should definitely be published as a separate article once you put the finishing touches.
Worry not, it's my intention to move it into the encyclopedia once I've finished making an effort to iron out inconsistencies etc with the aid of patient folk such as yourself. There will be plenty of queries, errors, missing local names for terms etc needing people's attention!
As for a general article that distinguishes between current and historical uses, I'm afraid I can't help you at this time; not in regards to Russia, anyway. I started work in that direction with the History of the administrative division of Russia series, but then I became quite busy in real life (the one outside of Wikipedia, you know? :)), and to top it all off I lost many invaluable and irreplaceable reference materials in a hard drive crash (me being a moron about backup being the main reason). When I returned, I decided to start from the other end of the chronological spectrum, finishing modern administrative divisions first and then maybe working backwards from then on. So, all I can offer now is my availability to answering specific questions you might have. Sorry.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
My commiserations re the wretched hard drive (yes, so easy to type...) but more my thanks for your picking it all up again; "all" you can offer me is proving a great deal!
Yours, David. Replies at this indentation all at 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the commiserations, bit since it happened a while ago, I'm quite fine now :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Please let me know if I missed anything. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm further enlightened, for which I continue to be grateful and note the effort you are making in my direction; thank you. I don't think you've missed anything – but then I'm not sure I'd notice!
Best wishes, David 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem, always glad to help. As you might have noticed, the topic interests me quite a bit, so an opportunity to talk (at lengths) with other interested people is no effort on my part. :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Transferred from User talk:David Kernow#Subdivisions of...

David, I'm sorry, but I give up on trying to incorporate inline comments into inline comments on two different talk pages :) I have provided my (still inline) comments at my talk, however. Feel free to start a new section instead of tinkering with indentation if it's going to be easier for you. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to treat the discussion as unfolding on your talk page as the original, copying it [to my talk page] as it proceeds merely for my own record. Hope that'll be okay. David 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll just keep it here then. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I probably won't be around much until after the Labor Day. I will more than likely be able to read your responses, but please don't expect a prompt reply—I'm planning on a long weekend of joy and relaxation, and writing (hopefully!) coherent and detailed explanations takes effort :)) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
"I'm planning on a long weekend of joy and relaxation..." – I think you might've earned it!  Hope you enjoy. Yours, David 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Plurals

David, as you requested, here is the table of the singular and plural forms of the names of admininistrative divisions of Russia. I also included stress marks, in case you are interested, but those are normally not included in writing. Enjoy!

1, 21, 31, 41... "Undefined plural" 2–4, 22–24, 32–34, 42–44... 5–20, 25–30, 35–40...
субъе́кт Федера́ции (subyekt Federatsii) (m.) субъе́кты Федера́ции (subyekty Federatsii) субъе́кта Федера́ции (subyekta Federatsii) субъе́ктов Федера́ции (subyektov Federatsii)
респу́блика (respublika) (f.) респу́блики (respubliki) респу́блики (respubliki) респу́блик (respublik)
о́бласть (oblast) (f.) о́бласти (oblasti) о́бласти (oblasti) областе́й (oblastey)
край (kray) (m.) края́ (kraya) кра́я (kraya) краёв (krayov)
автоно́мный о́круг (avtonomny okrug) (m.) автоно́мные округа́ (avtonomnyye okruga) автоно́мных о́круга (avtonomnykh okruga) автоно́мных округо́в (avtonomnykh okrugov)
автоно́мный о́бласть (avtonomnaya oblast) (f.) автоно́мные о́бласти (avtonomnyye oblasti) автоно́мных о́бласти (avtonomnykh oblasti) автоно́мных областе́й (avtonomnykh oblastey)
райо́н (ra[i/y]on) (m.) райо́ны (ra[i/y]ony) райо́на (ra[i/y]ona) райо́нов (ra[i/y]onov)
муниципа́льное образова́ние (munitsipalnoye obrazovaniye) (n.) муниципа́льные образова́ния (munitsipalnyye obrazovaniya) муниципа́льных образова́ния (munitsipalnykh obrazovaniya) муниципа́льных образова́ний (munitsipalnykh obrazovaniy)
го́род (федера́льного значе́ния) (gorod (federalnogo znacheniya)) (m.) города́ (федера́льного значе́ния) (goroda (federalnogo znacheniya)) го́рода (федера́льного значе́ния) (goroda (federalnogo znacheniya)) городо́в (федера́льного значе́ния) (gorodov (federalnogo znacheniya))
посёлок (городско́го ти́па) (posyolok (gorodskogo tipa)) (m.) посёлки (городско́го ти́па) (posyolki (gorodskogo tipa)) посёлка (городско́го ти́па) (posyolka (gorodskogo tipa)) посёлков (городско́го ти́па) (posyolkov (gorodskogo tipa))
муниципа́льный о́круг (munitsipalny okrug) (m.) муниципа́льные округа́ (munitsipalnyye okruga) муниципа́льных о́круга (munitsipalnykh okruga) муниципа́льных округо́в (munitsipalnykh okrugov)
администрати́вный о́круг (administrativny okrug) (m.) администрати́вные округа́ (administrativnyye okruga) администрати́вных о́круга (administrativnykh okruga) администрати́вных округо́в (administrativnykh okrugov)
сельсовет (selsovet) (m.) сельсоветы (selsovety) сельсовета (selsoveta) сельсоветов (selsovetov)

Please let me know if you need any other terms in the similar format.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is great! – and not a little work, so maybe it can find life beyond my (soon-to-be-archived) talk page...?  I don't think I'll use all the variations (yes, I had no idea Russian had such a – probably very useful – variety of plural forms) but hope I've used and confirmed the appropriate ones in The Table. I'm planning to move The Table et al into the main encyclopedia sometime tomorrow, at which point I'll also take a copy of all the above for my own (talk-page archive) reference. Thank you for all your mentoring work!  Best wishes, David Kernow 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. I don't think the list I made would be of any use to anyone else—it is basically an excerpt from a dictionary; anybody with basic knowledge of Russian would be able to compile one. And it only took fifteen minutes to make, so no worries there.
Best of luck with, erm, The Introduction of The Table into the Main Namespace :) If your next project is going to be related to Russia even remotely, you are more than welcome to ask me whatever questions you might have then. It was a great pleasure working with you, and I am looking forward to more! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
If I ever reach it, I have Subdivisions of Russia on my list per above; so you might see some action there, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, more thanks for your celebration here – my own immediate backlog seems to've swelled so much, I wonder if I'll ever reach anything administrative!  Yours, David 23:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
PS I've now archived all your useful information above, in case you were waiting to do the same.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Kernow/Archive_10&oldid=112457004"