Talk:Administrative divisions of Riga
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Jackiespeel in topic City Council Development Agency plan
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Apkaimes
editHere and here it says Šīs apkaimes nav iecerētas, kā administratīvas vienības so what's with the This plan is not yet officially confirmed, but when it is, Riga will consist of 58 neighbourhoods, each with its own centre, its own unique architectural form and landscape and them being listed in article named Administrative divisions alltogehter ? I don't mind having them, but then the article should be titled simply divisons of Riga or if it should clearly indicated that these are not intended to be administrative divisons and rationale for including them explained ~~Xil (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should ask that question at lv.wiki since that is where I got it from - Rīgas apkaimes — "Šis plāns vēl nav oficiāli apstiprināts, bet kad tas tiks izdarīts, tad Rīga sastāvēs no 58 apkaimēm, katra ar savu centru, savu unikālo ainavisko un arhitektonisko veidolu". Alternatively, you could just fix it since you have obviously found references. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to stick my head in that mess again, I clearly indicated on Talk:Riga that there is a controversy over this, that should have rised some red flags for you, but it apparently didn't. Besides on lv.wikipedia the section isn't labeled administrative divisons. And anyway shouldn't you read what your sources say, instead of refering to another Wikipedia ? ~~Xil (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really think that any controverse on another wiki should influence this article — when you are not even able to convey what the controverse is about? Do you really expect that I, because you hint something, have to find out whatever controversies there are on another wiki? And, yes... I should have read the sources, as well as the author of that piece should have. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I felt being shoved off when I tried to warn you not to put neiborghoods together with administrative divisons, so I figured I'll let you work. Though lv.wiki article could be better at explaing the matter as I said they don't exactly go in the administrative divisons section. Besides it is not really relevant I merely beg you to be carefull and chech what exactly do sources say. In the essence Riga City Council Development Agency has not included some historic neiborghoods in the list and some have been created anew and some users don't agree with including these neiborghoods in Wikipedia and claim it is WP:OR, that the author is having WP:COI (because everyone who thinks that governmental institution is a reliable source most likely is working for it) etc and I somehow ended up being considered shitty sysop and unproductive user, which is why I don't want to hear anything about that again and could we please avoid that matter spillig over from there ? ~~Xil (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I was actually wondering about this as I wrote the article, but let us take it when a situation arises, at this wiki. And your addition to the article clarifies the actual situation. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I still would favour renaiming this as divisons of Riga, if it is okay English. I can see reasons for concern and if it is such a sensative matter perhaps we shouldn't push people ~~Xil (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- To me, renaming this article to divisions of Riga would be a step back. If the article was expanded some more, a step forward would be to simply divide the content and create a Neighbourhoods of Riga article, which also solves the problem. As I understand it, the problem is the mixing of official and not yet official entities, am I right? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 05:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not official entities and the website says they are not planed to be in sense of administrative units, but are solely for plannig development ~~Xil (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Naturally... Well, pardon me. Question still remains, would you mind if I move the section "Neighbourhoods in Riga" to its own article Neighbourhoods in Riga, and then keep a clean article on administrative divisions of Riga? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, go ahead ~~Xil (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Naturally... Well, pardon me. Question still remains, would you mind if I move the section "Neighbourhoods in Riga" to its own article Neighbourhoods in Riga, and then keep a clean article on administrative divisions of Riga? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not official entities and the website says they are not planed to be in sense of administrative units, but are solely for plannig development ~~Xil (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- To me, renaming this article to divisions of Riga would be a step back. If the article was expanded some more, a step forward would be to simply divide the content and create a Neighbourhoods of Riga article, which also solves the problem. As I understand it, the problem is the mixing of official and not yet official entities, am I right? Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 05:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I still would favour renaiming this as divisons of Riga, if it is okay English. I can see reasons for concern and if it is such a sensative matter perhaps we shouldn't push people ~~Xil (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I was actually wondering about this as I wrote the article, but let us take it when a situation arises, at this wiki. And your addition to the article clarifies the actual situation. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I felt being shoved off when I tried to warn you not to put neiborghoods together with administrative divisons, so I figured I'll let you work. Though lv.wiki article could be better at explaing the matter as I said they don't exactly go in the administrative divisons section. Besides it is not really relevant I merely beg you to be carefull and chech what exactly do sources say. In the essence Riga City Council Development Agency has not included some historic neiborghoods in the list and some have been created anew and some users don't agree with including these neiborghoods in Wikipedia and claim it is WP:OR, that the author is having WP:COI (because everyone who thinks that governmental institution is a reliable source most likely is working for it) etc and I somehow ended up being considered shitty sysop and unproductive user, which is why I don't want to hear anything about that again and could we please avoid that matter spillig over from there ? ~~Xil (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you really think that any controverse on another wiki should influence this article — when you are not even able to convey what the controverse is about? Do you really expect that I, because you hint something, have to find out whatever controversies there are on another wiki? And, yes... I should have read the sources, as well as the author of that piece should have. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't want to stick my head in that mess again, I clearly indicated on Talk:Riga that there is a controversy over this, that should have rised some red flags for you, but it apparently didn't. Besides on lv.wikipedia the section isn't labeled administrative divisons. And anyway shouldn't you read what your sources say, instead of refering to another Wikipedia ? ~~Xil (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
City Council Development Agency plan
editHas it been completed? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)