Template talk:Infobox Russian inhabited locality/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Forkit

Another fork of settlement, sigh. You can't include fact templates in an infobox template, unless you also arrange to pass a date. Rich Farmbrough, 02:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

Really everything in the infobox should be from the article,and hence referenced there. Rich Farmbrough, 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

The template is recent and is still being worked on. Passing the dates to the fact templates is one thing that is planned to be added (I apologize for the inconveniences of the interim period). If you want to help in that area, then by all means, do!

As for the second part of your comment (that everything in the infobox should be from the article and referenced there), I would hardly be the one to disagree, but in reality folks just add those dumb infoboxes without ever bothering to work that same stuff into the text (let alone reference it properly). About 95% of the existing infoboxes are unreferenced, and hence should be marked as such.

Fork-wise, {{Infobox settlement}} does not work well for Russia—it has too many confusing and easily misused parameters which are not really applicable, does not have a number of important parameters which are applicable, and does not allow to group the parameters that work logically. Trust me, if it were possible to adapt {{Infobox settlement}} to work for Russia properly, I wouldn't be wasting my time developing a Russia-specific template. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:32, September 8, 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think that {{Infobox settlement}} cannot work for Russia properly? Have you raised your concerns on its talk page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

…awaiting a response. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Answered in the "Infobox itself" section below.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:16, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Name

Yesterday, I moved this template to Infobox Russian settlement (and related pages likewise); that being both shorter and more memorable, given its similarity to Infobox settlement. Today, has reverted me, with edit summaries including the pejorative "Please do not make changes to things you do not understand.)". Can anyone make a case that the original name is better, or shall we move it back? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for trying to make things better, but, unfortunately, you didn't. "Shorter" and "more memorable" is surely a laudable goal, but in this particular case "settlement" is the worst possible term one could choose. A "settlement" in Russia may be one of many different things—yes, it could means "inhabited locality", broadly construed (although that usage is not common as applied to larger cities and towns, in articles on which this infobox is primarily deployed), but it also means a certain type of a rural locality ("посёлок"), a certain type of an urban locality ("urban-type settlement"), and, confusingly, two types of municipal formations ("urban settlement" and "rural settlement"). Confused yet? And I am not even delving into the historical aspect of all this! "Inhabited locality", on the other hand, has none of those deficiencies and ambiguities; plus, this term is very close to the original Russian term ("населённый пункт").

Here's an example for you to ponder on. Bolshakovo is a settlement (a settlement of rural type, if you use the full designation) in Kaliningrad Oblast. That Bolshakovo is a "settlement" means that it is a rural locality, but it is not a village, it is not a selo, it is not an aul, and so on and so forth. A "settlement" is one of the many types of rural localities that exist in Russia; that's the primary meaning of the word (and unfortunately, there is no better synonym to replace it with to avoid ambiguity completely). Together with urban localities, rural localities comprise the inhabited localities of Russia.

For more background details on the terminology, please see types of inhabited localities in Russia. It's not the best written article, but it should give you a general idea of what is going on here. The gist is basically that we are trying to avoid using an ambiguous term overloaded with incompatible meanings (which apply to pretty much the same context!) by all means possible. If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to ask me (here is fine). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:07, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Settlement is not the only possible translation of that term; it may also be "village", for instance; and the distinction doesn't exist in English. The aticle to which you refer is cited mainly from Russian-language sources, which again does not support that distinction being made in an English encyclopedia. Furthermore, since it is not exposed to our readers, teh only criteria of import when naming a template is the convenience of our fellow editors. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I will break my answer in two sections, so we could discuss the issues of terminology and issues of using the infobox separately. Hope you don't mind.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to read such lengthy essays. I note also, however, that right after reverting my move you protected the template at your preferred version. You are not supposed to do this; please unprotect it, immediately. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

First off, we should never forget that we are working on an encyclopedia which our readers will use. We are not working on an encyclopedia which would be the easiest for us to maintain. Referring to Russian inhabited localities as "settlements" surely makes things easier for us (editors), but it leaves our readers out in the cold wondering just why the hell a Russian "settlement" is a type of "rural settlement" which, together with "urban settlements" comprises... "settlements". I guess I don't understand why you insist on using a term which, as you yourself admit, has many different meanings, to refer to many different things in one context? "Inhabited localities" is a great alternative that addresses much of that problem.

With Bolshakovo, for example, the term "village" cannot be used as a translation because in Russia a "village" is a type of rural locality which is different from a "settlement". Golovchino is a village, and it is not a "settlement" (in the sense Bolshakovo is). The distinction between a "village", a "selo", a "settlement (of rural type)", and about fifty-something other types of rural localities is legally made in the documents dealing with the administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia. To ignore this fact would be an insult to our encyclopedic purpose. If you want to refer to villages and selos and settlements as a group, the most appropriate term is "rural localities". "Villages" is fine for layman purposes (or in articles that merely mention such a place in passing), but in articles dealing with administrative divisions explicitly, we should make sure our terminology is consistent and unambiguous. Your approach ("let's use 'settlements' everywhere!") is not unlike suggesting to use "itty-bitty little specks" to refer to subatomic particles in physics articles.

Regarding your last point (that "naming a template is [only for]] the convenience of our fellow editors", you are right on that in general. You should, however, also take into consideration the circumstances. Adding an infobox to an article is often seen as a no-brainer job anyone can do. It is true when you have a well-written and referenced article from which it takes no effort to extract the pieces necessary to fill out an infobox. Unfortunately, with WP:RUSSIA being undermanned and overworked, we don't have that many articles which are well-written and properly referenced. The articles about the inhabited localities are no exception. Yet for some reason I am still trying to understand some editors think that if they pluck a bunch of random links from anywhere on the web, plug them into the infoboxes, that would be of great help to us. What it in fact does is simply create more maintenance overhead for us, not to mention that most of that random information is either outdated, is taken from sources which are not exactly reliable, or is simply garbage. Do those "editors" know the difference between a "settlement" and an "inhabited locality" in Russia? I'll bet my ass they do not! Would they be able to figure out why a "settlement" is a type of rural locality, yet we are still using {{Infobox Russian settlement}} for the populated places of any kind? Yeah, right. I, sadly, say all this from experience. All in all, there is no need to create more cleanup for WP:RUSSIA by making template names ambiguous. I've been working in this area for what, five years now, and if there is one thing I learned, it's that if you can get rid of ambiguity, get rid of it you should, be it in the choice of terminology or in template names. Otherwise we'll continue feeding our readers garbage.

Also, if I may ask, why is that a problem for you? Are you planning to add these infoboxes to articles about Russia? Do you foresee yourself forgetting this template's name while you work? Are you aware that it is possible to utilize the redirects to this template (a practice which actually makes better sense, because it would be easier to sort out the backlinks that way)? {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} was not even intended to be called directly; the plan was to call it via three wrappers corresponding to three main types of inhabited localities—{{Infobox Russian city}}, {{Infobox Russian urban-type settlement}}, and {{Infobox Russian rural locality}} (the latter can be replaced with {{Infobox Russian village}} for villages, {{Infobox Russian settlement}} for settlements of rural type, and so on). Does it make no sense to you whatsoever? Questions, questions, questions... I am sorry I seem snappish with all this, but it is already an enormous challenge to keep WP:RUSSIA in at least some semblance of order without having to fend off folks who want to make things "more convenient" but never bother to ask what the project needs or to offer actual help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Infobox itself

{{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} was developed for use in articles about the inhabited localities of Russia because {{Infobox Settlement}} was not a good fit. Inhabited localities of Russia have many peculiarities which populated places in other countries do not have. The most important thing is that there exist a clearly defined distinction between administrative and municipal aspects of any one place. To complicate things further, administrative aspects (both definition and implementation) are different in different federal subjects, whereas the definition of municipal aspects is federally mandated (the implementation is still mostly up to the local authorities, which have room for maneuver even within the rigid federal guidelines). In this distinction, Russia is fairly unique, and both aspects matter equally from the encyclopedic point of view. The very least that an infobox should do is to provide means to clearly separate the administrative and municipal aspects of a place. {{Infobox Settlement}} has no such means, which is why {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} is a necessity. As an added bonus, it also organizes other fields in a manner which is more logical and consistent with the Russian definitions. As of now, {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} is deployed in 99% of existing articles about Russian places which have an infobox, and it has been for the past several years at least. I hope you agree this demonstrates a consensus as to which infobox is a better fit. I know you asked for a "written policy", and I know one cannot be provided (because WP:RUSSIA never needed one to support in writing something as patently obvious as the fact that {{Infobox Settlement}} does not work for us), but you should also remember that in absence of a policy or a guideline one's actions should be guided by the general practices already being followed. With regards to the inhabited localities of Russia, the general practice is to use {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}, not something else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:24, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction

Two statements from Ezhiki, both above:

• The template is recent and is still being worked on.
• As of now, {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} is deployed in 99% of existing articles about Russian places which have an infobox, and it has been for the past several years at least.

I'm confused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This template is an overhaul of {{Infobox Russian city}}, which was intended for deployment in articles about Russian cities and towns (but not urban-type settlements and rural localities), and which had been deployed accordingly for the past several years.

This new template fixes a number of defects the old template had, adds more features and flexibility, and can now be used in articles about the inhabited localities of any type (i.e., not just cities/towns). It retains backward compatibility with the old city template (which itself is now a redirect to this new one), so the 99% of articles that used the city template now utilize this one (via a redirect). Hope this clarifies my statements.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:44, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Locked templates

Templates are only supposed to be locked from anybody editing unless they get a high degree of traffic and history of vandalism. Given that this template is barely ever edited could you please explain to me why you felt it necessary to lock it, other than wishing to retain your own version of it? Himalayan 17:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates which are used in a large number of articles are routinely locked from editing. This particular template is currently used in over 300 articles (many of which are highly visible themselves), and overall it is eligible for placing in over 150,000 articles (once they are written, which they are constantly being). In my judgement, this is a potential for abuse high enough to warrant locking the template, especially now when any further changes are going to be mostly cosmetic. Please see WP:HRT for the applicable guideline.

As for my "wishing to retain [my] own version" of the template, I'm going to let this lack of good faith fly. I may have been very involved with this template, but that's most certainly not the reason why I chose to protect it. If you believe the protection is unjustified, you are welcome to bring it up with any other administrator of your choice. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:56, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

"eligible for placing" != "placed" and your claim that "further changes are going to be mostly cosmetic" is unproven. You also seem to have overlooked this request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, the old Russian city template was not locked like this, a semi protection maybe, it is you who is acting in bad faith here by not permitting editors to make improvements to it. Himalayan 12:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

a) "eligible for placing" != "placed" → I do not understand what you are trying to say by this. Please, clarify. Presently, the template is already both "placed" (in hundreds of articles) and "eligible for placing" (in thousands more). In my view, WP:HRT requirements are met.

b) if non-cosmetic changes are required, they can always be proposed here first and the template can be unprotected if necessary. I do not see any improvement suggestions as of today (there's only the dispute you started and on which you refuse to read my responses; more on that below), hence I see no need to unprotect the template. Additionally, tests/improvements can always be performed in a sandbox first; it is never a good idea to tweak a template which already sees a high level of use.

c) This request I have indeed overlooked; I apologize. In response, I would like to point out that, first, if you request explanations from someone, and the explanations are provided to you, it is not my problem that you are in turn not capable "disinclined" to read a response which is "too long". I took time to address your concern thoroughly; please kindly take time to read and understand it so we could then continue the discussion. If you cannot be bothered to read an opponent's replies, I suggest you drop this matter entirely. You cannot coax me to respect the "D" portion of WP:BRD on one day and then refuse to read my responses on another. Second, accusing me of protecting the template because it is "my preferred version" is not in spirit of AGF. As I have just explained, the protection is only due to WP:HRT; I would have protected it regardless of you showing up.

d) As I told Himalayan Explorer above, if you believe the protection is unjustified, please contact an administrator of your choice to review it. If the template is deemed unworthy of protection at this time, so be it. I do, however, advise you to change your attitude towards handling your opponents' responses.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:37, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

"!=" is shorthand for "not equal to". For example, "disinclined != incapable". You might like to ponder that latter equation as you reflect on your failure to assume good faith in part "c" of your latest verbose reply. Tl;dr also pertains. I note your refusal to unprotect this template, and refer you accordingly to WP:OWN. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy, catering to your taste of short responses, here they are as succinct as my language skills allow:

• I know what "!=" stands for; what I didn't understand was what you were trying to say by the whole expression (for the record, I still don't).
• "Too long, didn't read" does not apply not only because it's only an essay (i.e., basically someone's rant), but also because I do not consider my response to be "unnecessarily verbose". There are many fine details involved here, I tried to explain them to you the best I could. If anything is unclear, I'll gladly elaborate further.
• In response to your counter-accusation of a lack of good faith on my part, I have struck my "not capable" remark and replaced it with a direct quote. I don't think it changes the point much (the point being you want an explanation but don't want to read it), but hopefully it is now more to your liking.
• I have already explained my reasons for refusal to unprotect the template (which, I emphasize once again, have nothing to do with WP:OWN) and suggested a course of action for you. Alternatively, if you have an improvement in mind that should be applied to this template, please test it and propose here on this page. I have nothing further to add on that particular point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Ëzhiki, the template should really only be protected if there's been vandalism in the past- not if it will in the future. Therefore, your comment of "eligible ... 150,000 articles" shouldn't be relevant. Right? If vandalism is the reason, I'd suggest unprotecting. If the reason is an edit war, I'd suggest taking it to WP:DR.

I'm not unprotecting because it's wheel warring, and I'd like to have a discussion about it. I know you are gone on the weekends, so this will probably sit a few days. tedder (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I don't necessarily agree that it needs to be protected but HRT is explicitly preventative. Protonk (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

HRT is preventative, but vandalism isn't. And only a few hundred articles makes HRT seem less likely. tedder (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As it stands I'd like to restore the green color both Ezhiki and I once agreed on, I can't evne do that now. As for good fiath, your very locking of this template Ezhiki illustrates you are unwilling for editors to try to help improve it and are showing to me a case of WP:OWN given that it has received no vandalism or gets much traffic. Himalayan 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have unprotected the page. It is not wheel warring to revert another admin's actions and especially not to do so by unprotecting a page. It is wheel warring to redo after reversion, thus it would be wheel warring for an admin to reprotect the page after my unprotection. There is a poorly named thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Breakdown_at_Template:Infobox_Russian_inhabited_locality on this abuse of admin tools.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• BTW, I took this action primarily because of the clear appearance of an abuse of tools combined with a request to unprotect. A lack of a clear consensus to protect at this talk page was only confirmatory. If consensus to semi-protect or even full-protect develops here in the near future, I would not consider it a reversion of my reversion (and thus a wheel war) for an uninvolved admin to implement that. Re-implementing full protection while the ANI thread remains open would probably be imprudent. If any change is made while the thread is open, I'd appreciate being told. After that, I could care less as long as it's done by an uninvolved admin. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have explained my take on the situation here. I'd appreciate any further comments pertaining to the protection of this template to be directed there. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:02, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Name redux

Lest the issue be lost on all the above; I'm re-raising it here: should this template be renamed "Infobox Russian settlement", or something equally more succinct than the current name? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the name "Infobox Russian settlement" for the reasons explained here and here. The proposed name may be more "succinct", but it also out of line with the terminology used in the articles (thus leading to confusion among editors). "Infobox Russian settlement" should exist, but it should be a redirect to this template; a redirect to be used in articles about Russian settlements (same way as "Infobox Russian city" redirect would be used in articles about Russian inhabited localities which have a city status, "Infobox Russian village" would be used in articles about Russian inhabited localities which have a village status, "Infobox Russian urban-type settlement" would be used in articles about Russian inhabited localities which have an urban-type settlement status, and so on and so forth). From the very start, the plan was to eventually convert all these redirects into "wrapper templates" (i.e., so a city wrapper template would not accept parameters which only pertain to, say, rural localities, etc.), while "Infobox Russian inhabited locality" will remain a core template used by the said wrappers. Calling this template via wrappers/redirects allows to neatly sort the transclusion backlinks, which, in turn, helps facilitate and prioritize maintenance and cleanup tasks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

I have to oppose too in this circumstance. "Settlement" gets very tricky in regards to Russia. I think this is what sparked the recent disagreements. Settlement is actually engrained within the naming convention in English of certain places in which other settlement forms are not, it is the same with Israel. Himalayan 17:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Need a western coordinate

Coords Wrong! See the talk here, the template does not work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lavrentiya#Coords_Wrong.21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdupont (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. This template is an upgrade of an older template dealing with cities/towns only, and since there are no cities/towns in Russia in the western hemisphere, the old template defaulted all longitudes to "east". There are, however, other types of inhabited localities in the western hemisphere in Russia, which is something I completely missed when upgrading the template to deal with all kinds of inhabited localities in Russia. I will put this on my to-do list with high priority, but it might still take me a while to take care of. If in the meanwhile someone else wants to give this a shot, please do so by all means (this, however, is not an acceptable solution, but I'll leave it as is in the interim). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:35, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

The bug has been fixed. For the inhabited localities in the Western hemisphere, one can now set the longEW parameter to W.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:04, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

City in Russia template

Would anyone be able to look at the three articles that still still use the long-deprecated Template:City in Russia (aka Template:Infobox City Russia)? If they can be updated to use this template instead, then it should be possible to delete the old one entirely. I started to do the substitution myself, but I don't have a good understanding of the Russian administrative divisions, so I'm afraid that I'll muck it up and put the info in the wrong fields. --RL0919 (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, that template is long obsolete! I'll make sure to update these three articles as soon as I can (which will probably be some time next week). Thanks for finding this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:09, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

I notice the old template is down to just two uses now, so I've nominated it for deletion. Assuming deletion is approved, the final two can be replaced as part of the close process if no one gets to them sooner. --RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I opposed the deletion for reasons of backward compatibility. If I remember correctly, this template enjoyed a fairly high usage rate in its days, and since it's not in the way of anything, there's no good reason to delete it (the downside of deleting it is that it will no longer show properly in the old revisions of the articles which used it). I will, however, take care of the remaining two articles that still use it. Please let me know if there's a downside to keeping this template which I don't see. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:22, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Pushkin (town)

If you like, I could fix {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} so it accepts commas as thousand separators for Population= and pop_census=. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not. When the template was being developed, I don't believe that was possible. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 20, 2010; 21:01 (UTC)

Perhaps it wasn't possible at the time. I don't know the history. However, since {{Infobox settlement}} is now using the formatnum magic word, I guess we can too! I'll see if I can get this working in the sandbox. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Fix copied to the live template. Feel free to revert if there are any issues. -Stepheng3 (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Marvelous. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 22, 2010; 03:19 (UTC)

I updated the documentation. Now I want to allow commas in area_km2 and Area_km2 also, just to simplify the documentation. I've coded and tested that fix in the sandbox. What do you think? --Stepheng3 (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are asking too many questions in regards to such trivial matters :) If you have tested it and it works, of course go ahead and implement it; it's clearly an improvement! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 22, 2010; 15:05 (UTC)

Done. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

default for leader_title=

The documentation says that when leader_name is provided, leader_title should default to "Leader". However, I see a single-quote instead. For example: Elista or the first testcase.--Stepheng3 (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the bug and fixed it. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to be the same type of bug that affected established_title earlier. Thanks for catching it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 22, 2010; 17:19 (UTC)

Extra space at article top

I have no idea how this template does it, and can't find the reason in the code, but under certain circumstances it adds an empty paragraph at the top of the article. For examples see Dolgoprudny and Veliky Novgorod, and for the original description of the problem and all I know about it see WP:VPT#Dolgoprudny. At first I guessed that something that belongs at the end of the code for coat of arms / flag is instead at the beginning of the code for anthem/holiday, but that doesn't seem to be true. Hans Adler 11:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was generating too many newlines. By removing some of the surplus newlines from the code I seem to have fixed the problem, but if it turns out to have broken something else somewhere, then please revert and we can have another look.--Kotniski (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's amazing that line breaks within a table can cause an empty paragraph above it. I am not sure I want to become a template expert... Hans Adler 12:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, Kotniski. I was making extra sure to remove all those newlines when developing the template, but the damn things are a bitch to catch and some managed to sneak in. Thanks again.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 17, 2010; 20:54 (UTC)

undocumented parameter

Today I stumbled across an undocumented parameter Population= which appears to be a synonym for pop_census=. Perhaps this should be either documented or eliminated. --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's a leftover from the previous iteration of this infobox. Most other parameters also have "alternative" names which have been deprecated (but are still supported for backwards compatibility sake). I intentionally avoided documenting them in order to discourage their use, and am planning to go through the existing infoboxes one-by-one to have the deprecated parameter names updated (help with that would be greatly appreciated :)). Hope this answers your question.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2010; 14:55 (UTC)

The removal of old parameters would be facilitated by a maintenance category. Does one exist? --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't thought of that. Could you, please, give me an example of some other template for which this approach is implemented? I'll then be able to tweak this template accordingly. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2010; 18:17 (UTC)

{{Coord}} adds articles to the maintenance category Category:Coord template needing repair if any of the parameters dim=, globe=, region=, scale=, or source= is defined. --18:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I have a question. Since all instances of use of the template are available via the WhatLinksHere function, would it not be easier to create a list of parameter names that need to be replaced and feed it to a bot, which would go through the WhatLinksHere list and replace all of the matches? What is the benefit of having a maintenance cat compared to this approach? I would imagine there are thousands upon thousands of links to the {{coord}} template, but with this template we barely have a few hundred, so wouldn't the maintenance cat-related work be redundant?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2010; 18:54 (UTC)

So far my experience is that getting a bot going (including finding a bot owner, working out the details of the request, and getting the bot action approved) takes longer than doing several hundred edits by hand. You're welcome to use whatever approach works best for you. If you want a bot, I won't be much help because I don't have a bot of my own. If you decide to hand-edit, I'll help. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon some research and reflection, you are probably right—it's easier to do manually. If you are willing to help, that'd be really great. I suppose you are going to need a crosswalk list of the old deprecated parameters and the parameters that replaced them? I'll try to produce it this week.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 30, 2010; 13:16 (UTC)

That would certainly speed up the work. --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Crosswalk

Here's the crosswalk I promised.

• EnglishName→en_name
• RussianName→ru_name
• LocalName1→loc_name1
• LocalLangName1→loc_lang1
• LocalName2→loc_name2
• LocalLangName2→loc_lang2
• LocalName3→loc_name3
• LocalLangName3→loc_lang3
• LocalName4→loc_name4
• LocalLangName4→loc_lang4
• OtherName→other_name
• OtherLangName→other_lang
• Skyline→image_skyline
• SkylineLegend→image_caption
• LocatorMap→image_map
• LocatorMapLegend→map_caption
• (add) map_label_position
• LatDeg→latd
• LatMin→latm
• LatSec→lats
• LonDeg→longd
• LonMin→longm
• LonSec→longs
• (for places in the Western hemisphere, add) longEW=W
• Flag→image_flag
• (add) flag_caption
• CoatOfArms→image_coa
• (add) coa_caption
• AnthemLink→anthem
• (add) anthem_ref
• CityDay→holiday
• (add) holiday_ref
• FederalSubject→federal_subject
• InJurisdictionOf→* see note below
• (add) federal_subject_ref
• (add) adm_data_as_of
• (add) adm_district_jur* see note below
• (add) adm_district_jur_ref
• (add) adm_inhabloc_jur* see note below
• (add) adm_inhabloc_jur_ref
• (add) adm_citydistrict_jur* see note below
• (add) adm_citydistrict_type
• (add) adm_citydistrict_jur_ref
• (add) adm_selsoviet_jur* see note below
• (add) adm_selsoviet_type
• (add) adm_selsoviet_jur_ref
• (add) capital_of** see note below
• (add) capital_of_ref
• AdmCtrOf→adm_ctr_of** see note below
• (add) adm_ctr_of_ref
• (add) inhabloc_cat
• (add) inhabloc_cat_ref
• (add) inhabloc_type
• (add) inhabloc_type_ref
• MunStatus→** see note below
• SelfGovAsOf→mun_data_as_of
• (add) mun_district_jur** see note below
• (add) mun_district_jur_ref
• (add) urban_okrug_jur** see note below
• (add) urban_okrug_jur_ref
• (add) urban_settlement_jur** see note below
• (add) urban_settlement_jur_ref
• (add) rural_settlement_jur** see note below
• (add) rural_settlement_jur_ref
• (add) intra_settlement_territory** see note below
• (add) intra_settlement_territory_ref
• (add) mun_admctr_of
• (add) mun_admctr_of_ref
• LeaderType→leader_title
• (add) leader_title_ref
• LeaderName→leader_name
• (add) leader_name_ref
• Legislature→representative_body
• (add) representative_body_ref
• (add) area_of_what
• (add) area_as_of
• Area_km2 (or Area)→area_km2
• (add) area_km2_ref
• Population→pop_census
• PopulationRank→pop_census_rank
• (add) pop_density
• (add) pop_density_as_of
• (add) pop_density_ref
• PopulationLatest→pop_latest
• PopulationLatestDate→pop_latest_date
• (add) pop_latest_ref
• FoundationDate→established_date
• (add) established_title
• (add) established_date_ref
• (add) current_cat_date
• (add) current_cat_date_ref
• (add) prev_name1..5
• (add) prev_name1..5_date
• (add) prev_name1..5_ref
• AbolishmentDate→abolished_date
• (add) abolished_date_ref
• PostalCode→postal_codes
• (add) postal_codes_ref
• DialingCode→dialing_codes
• (add) dialing_codes_ref
• Website→website
• (add) website_ref
• (add) date={{subst:#time:F Y}}
• Event1..10→move to the text of the article or other applicable parameters

^* InJurisdictionOf parameter maps to adm_inhabloc_jur by default; however, it should be removed and the applicable fields from the following list should be properly filled out: federal_subject_ref, adm_district_jur, adm_inhabloc_jur, adm_citydistrict_jur, adm_selsoviet_jur. If in doubt, simply remove the InJurisdictionOf parameter, add the new parameters, and leave them blank.

^** Old template did not have a field to separately list the capital status, mixing it instead with the values of the AdmCtrOf field.

^*** MunStatus parameter used to show the municipal status of a city/town. Since the new template now also supports other types of inhabited localities, this parameter needs to be replaced by filling out the values of the fields from the following list: mun_district_jur, urban_okrug_jur, urban_settlement_jur, rural_settlement_jur, intra_settlement_territory. If in doubt, simply leave the parameter unchanged.

Also note that capitalization of the parameter names matters ("Website" is not the same as "website", for example).

Finally, please do not add the "=" sign after the parameter names. It screws up the reference detection logic (and is a bug that still needs to be fixed). Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 30, 2010; 16:58 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. If you like, I could set up the maintenance category. Also, I bet I could fix the reference detection logic. --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I bet you could :) I bet I could, too, if only I had time to do everything I want to around here... The problem, in brief, is this: when no reference is provided in a "_ref" field, the template automatically generates the "citation needed" tag. However, if the "_ref" tag is followed by "=", the tag is not generated, even though "_ref" and "_ref=" should technically mean exactly the same thing (absence of a value). If you have any ideas as to what causes the problem, you'll have me owing you one :) This has been nagging at me forever; I just can't find time to sit down and look at this closely... Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 30, 2010; 18:32 (UTC)

The problem is that |dialing_codes_ref=| is a (blank) named parameter, whereas |dialing_codes_ref| is a positional parameter (which gets ignored). To the template, they don't mean the same thing at all. I'm working to fix these problems in the sandbox I just created. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting... I must have missed that when studying the parser documentation. Would you by any chance have a link handy documenting this difference (probably on meta somewhere)? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 30, 2010; 20:54 (UTC)

See Help:Template#Parameters for the difference between named and positional parameters. Basically, any parameter that contains an = is treated as a named parameter.

I've prototyped the fixes in the sandbox and set up a testcase that demonstrates the fix. If/when it meets with your approval, I'll take it live--or you can copy/paste it to the live template yourself. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, |dialing_codes_ref| could be the same as |1=dialing_codes_ref|, if it is the first such instance of an unamed parameter. You should be able to detect a |dialing_codes_ref=| by checking something like {{#ifeq:0|{{{dialing_codes_ref|0}}}|does not exist|exists}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I can't believe I missed this distinction when perusing the parser documentation, so the dum-dum is on my behalf! Stephen, the only changes to this template which do not "meet my approval" are those which break it :) Yours seem to be working just the way they were supposed to, so I copied the sandbox version over the live version. Thanks a bunch!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 31, 2010; 13:23 (UTC)

I'm ready to set up the maintenance category. Based on my experience with the testcases, I'd like to work initially on a small set of parameters, rather than try to upgrade them all in one pass. I plan to start with relatively straightforward parameters such as EnglishName, to get practice. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. For my part, I'll continue to replace all parameters in each article where the deprecated parameters are used as I stumble upon those articles. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 31, 2010; 17:04 (UTC)

I've set up the category and will start work on the first 14 parameters of the list. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, over 400 pages! There's more work than I imagined...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 31, 2010; 18:07 (UTC)

I've expanded the scope of the maintenance category to include the lat/long parameters and begun work on the A's. So far, so good. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm into the K's. Only 300 articles left in this pass. I've been noticing lots of locales with alternate names that could be added to the infobox -- a possible future project.--Stepheng3 (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm into the N's. Only 200 articles left in this pass.--Stepheng3 (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed at this point is that it's often unnecessary to insert every missing parameter, as many of them are omitted when inapplicable. For example, parameters loc_namen and loc_langn in the Novoaltaysk article are unneeded because in Altai Krai the only official language is Russian. It's not that big of a deal now, but when you expand the set of parameters to work on, such approach can create all kinds of undesirable implications.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2010; 04:01 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Going forward, I'll be conservative in adding parameters. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

What should I do if I encounter a transclusion with no AnthemLink= parameter provided? Should I still add anthem_ref= anyway? And if so, should I perhaps add both anthem= and anthem_ref=? --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say go ahead and add both. The only way to know for sure is to check whether the place has an anthem or not, but that would be way outside the scope of the cleanup task you signed up for.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2010; 19:47 (UTC)

Please check my work at Obukhovo. Also, I'd like more explicit guidance as to what to do with AdmCtrOf and the related parameters.--Stepheng3 (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Obukhovo's box looks fine (although it's not the best example because the article itself is in pretty poor shape). While listing all adm_ parameters is redundant, there is no easy way to know which ones are needed and which ones are not without looking at the appropriate sources. Also, I see you left the MunStatus parameter in place; I understand it's because you are not cleaning up the mun_ parameters yet, correct?

As for the AdmCtr parameter, its value needs to be moved to the adm_ctr_of parameter, unless the article is about a capital of a republic (such as Kazan). Note, however, that a city can serve as a capital of a republic, but also as the administrative center of some other entity (see, for example, Ufa). In that case the republic name will be passed as a value of the capital_of parameter, and the name of another entity will be passed as a value of the adm_ctr_of parameter (i.e., for Ufa, we'll have capital_of=[[Bashkortostan|Republic of Bashkortostan]] and adm_ctr_of=[[Ufimsky District]]). Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2010; 19:28 (UTC)

I'm leaving MunStatus unconverted because I can't tell which of the mun_ parameters to use. If give me some rules or show me enough examples maybe I can figure this out, but keep in mind I am not an expert on Russian geography. Similarly with AdmCtr, though going forward I'll try to determine whether the article is about the capital of a republic. That info should be in the lede, right?

I'm curious how you would complete the conversion of Obukhovo. Show me? --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it when I return on Monday; hope it's OK with you? Not that it'll help you much—what works for Obukhovo will not necessarily work for a different place (even if the values look very similar). Regarding MunStatus, it will tell you the municipal status of a place—it's going to be either "urban okrug" or "urban settlement" (anything else you can safely delete and ignore). Urban okrugs go into urban_okrug_jur (=Placename Urban Okrug), and urban settlements—into urban_settlement_jur (=Placename Urban Settlement). Not all are going to be correct with this approach (sometimes it's not "placename", but a variation thereof), but that's not a big deal, and since the entry is going to be unreferenced, it'll be easy to spot later. This way at least a deprecated parameter will not be left there confusing would-be infobox editors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2010; 00:01 (UTC)

P.S. As for the capitals of the republics, there are only twenty-one of them, and they are listed in the {{Russian republics capitals}} template.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2010; 00:04 (UTC)

Sounds good. One thing I'm still not clear on is what goes into urban_okrug_jur and urban_settlement_jur. Surely not the value of MunStatus! Best, --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been more clear. "Placename Urban Okrug" or "Placename Urban Settlement" goes into the corresponding field. So, if you have an article about "Fooysky", MunStatus of which is "urban okrug", you'll be using "Fooysky Urban Okrug" as the urban_okrug_jur's value. If MunStatus is "urban settlement", use "Fooysky Urban Settlement" as a value of the urban_settlement_jur field. If it's something else, just delete it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2010; 14:03 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've got that part. Now I notice that the infobox looks odd when established_title is left blank. See Pokrovsk, Sakha Republic. Is this okay? --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope, that's not supposed to happen. When established_title is left blank, the default is supposed to be "founded". If the "=" sign is removed after established_title, "Founded" is what shows up, which makes me believe there's a typo somewhere in the code related to the most recent changes. I'll have a look. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2010; 18:56 (UTC)

Ah, found it. The established_title parameter was not tested for being empty, which led to run-on six apostrophes when the date was supplied but the title was not. The apostrophes created several problems with italicization throughout the template and eventually crapped out in the established_title field. Fixed it now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2010; 19:13 (UTC)

I think I'm ready to crank through these now. I'll start with the Republics of Russia capitals, then proceed from where I left off in the P's. --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

May I delete unused parameters such as AdmCtrType and Charter?--Stepheng3 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, those can go.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 20, 2010; 03:42 (UTC)

I'm into the S's. Only 100 articles left in this pass.--Stepheng3 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've finished the first pass. Now I need to go back and finish the articles that I partially converted back in April. --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Whew! I think the conversion may finally be done. I'll wait a few more days in case there are still articles in the cache using the old parameter names. Then we can start removing the deprecated names from the template. --Stepheng3 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks like I spoke too soon. I'll keep plugging away at the maintenance category. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It can take some time, especially if people revert your edits. 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any reverts yet, just long delays between updating the template and articles popping up in the maint cat. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There are ways to force it to fill out the category faster. Basically, you open up each page that transcludes it, and then hit save, without making any changes. Doing this too fast, or to too many articles, however, is not advised :) I have a perl script that does it, saving each one every 5 to 10 seconds, which is slower than the edit-rate limit. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. If I ever run short on things to do around here ... --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I think the conversion is done. I'll wait a few more days, then start removing deprecated parameter names from the template.--Stepheng3 (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I purged all transclusions, so unless there are reversions or other new edits, you shouldn't see any new ones popping up. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the deprecated parameter names. Revert if necessary. --Stepheng3 (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Box width standardization

Arkhangelsk and Arkhangelsk Oblast have wider boxes than Koryazhma. I suggest using the same for all. Maybe use 300px. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. The infobox used for the inhabited localities is built on the generic {{Infobox}} template, and I am not sure how or where to set the width. The federal subjects' infobox is currently set to 23em. Whether it's the best value I don't know, but it's probably better to use relative units instead of absolute.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 20:06 (UTC)

Linking the offical type - removing generic type

The infobox at Koryazhma displays prominently the generic "inhabited locality" and links it. And the official designation "Town of oblast significance" is written much smaller and not linked. Please link to the official term and remove the generic one. The official can be a redirect to Types of inhabited localities of Russia. Default to generic if type is unknown, maybe choose between rural locality and urban locality if that is possible. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems one would need a complete list of all the types and establish appropriate redirects, some are at City of federal subject significance. One would need "Type (Russia)" as a redirect for every type. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is that in some oblasts the term "town of oblast significance" refers to an inhabited locality type, in others—to a type of an administrative division (equal in status to a district), and in others yet it is used in both senses. Arkhangelsk Oblast, for example, belongs to the second group, meaning that "Koryazhma Town of Oblast Significance" is an administrative division (which may have several inhabited localities in its jurisdiction), but the inhabited locality called Koryazhma actually has the status of a "town", which is what the second line in the infobox should be saying. I'll correct the article.

By the way, the list in the city of federal subject significance article is complete and current. What it lacks is references (this is on my to-do list) and a section with historical data.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 19:11 (UTC)

What the terms in the individual subjects mean is not relevant for linking. At least my proposal is better in linking than the current link to types of... Details like you explain here of the differences belong to the article space. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand—what else would you link the term if not to the article that is supposed to explain it? 99% of articles which have "inhabited locality" at the top of the infobox should be corrected, by the way, because it's merely a template default which is meant to be blatantly generic so people would want to correct it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 19:42 (UTC)

You altered Koryazhma but not the box behavior, so I have no example for an article that has "type of oblast significance" written in small and not linking to the article explaining "type of oblast significance". Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I altered Koryazhma because it was incorrect. I don't see anything wrong with the box—it inserts a default generic term when the actual designation is not specified; such behavior is by design when people use the raw template (which technically isn't supposed to be used directly). Instead, the recommendation is to use one of the copy-paste models, where the same field is pre-populated with less generic "city/town", "urban-type settlement", and "rural locality", pretty much as you suggested above. There is no way to automatically pick one of these three defaults if an editor inserts the raw template, unfortunately.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2011; 19:59 (UTC)

Local Native names should come first

This template reflects Russian nationalists view. Like the case Lhasa and Hohhot, local names should be presented at the first place. Wikipedians are sensitive on Chinese nationalism but less sensitive on Russian nationalism. --110.232.42.147 (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You should really be careful about throwing nationalist accusations around like that with no evidence to support them. The reason why Russian comes first is because it is the only official language on the territory of the whole country. Other languages are only official in some of the republics. Russian is also much more useful to readers who are trying to locate the place, simply because there would always be so many more sources about any given place in Russian than in a local language.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2012; 15:24 (UTC)

See other example:

• Greenland - Danish is the only official language on the territory of the whole Kingdom of Denmark (recognized regional language: Faroese, Greenlandic, German, etc.), isn't it?
• Lhasa and Hohhot - Chinese is the only official language on the territory of the whole People's Republic of China (recognized regional language: Mongol, Tibetan, etc.), isn't it?

So why is Russia the sole exception? If this is not nationalism, what is it? --110.232.42.147 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding nationalism, I'll leave it to your ample imagination to decide. For the record, my litmus test of a "nationalist" is a person who starts discussions with such accusations.

Regarding other examples, there is no one set of naming guidelines for all countries; each one is different from the other. If listing local languages for Greenland and China works in those articles, good for them. For Russia, languages are (and have been for years) sorted in the order of their usefulness to (Anglophone) readers. That's why names in English come first, names in Russian (for which a great abundance of sources is usually available) come second, names in local official languages (for which sources are either limited or non-existent) come third, and names in non-official languages, which are nevertheless important to the territory, come last. Note that in many (if not most) republics even the official websites are often only available in Russian, not in the local official language(s). What help is in giving prominence to the names in obscure languages most readers can neither parse nor use? And most of those languages are far more obscure to a Western reader than even Tibetan or Mongolian would be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 13, 2012; 17:17 (UTC)

I am closing the edit request as Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.. Feel free to continue discussion, and if a consensus is reached please reactivate the request per the instructions above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Time zone not in field parameters

An entry for time zone (with a reference) appears when the infobox displays but I can't see it listed as one of the fields you can edit. Is the 'code' related to time kept elsewhere? For example, at the Samara page time zone shows as the 6th citation when the page is viewed but I can't see the reference when I edit. Can anyone clarify how it works? Eldumpo (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The time zone is automatically generated by the {{Infobox Russian city}} template depending on various other parameters. It then uses {{RussiaTimeZone}} to generate the reference. — Edokter (talk) — 20:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for post, although I still can't see where the raw reference is contained at either of the templates you list. In any case the reference generated is very lengthy and not particularly useful in English, especially as the translate link does not seem to be working. I think it would be useful if you were able to overwrite the existing reference with a shorter/more useful link e.g. [1]. Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference is plainly visible at the bottom of {{RussiaTimeZone}}, just search for <ref name="RuTime">. — Edokter (talk) — 22:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The reference is also in full compliance with our formatting guidelines for foreign-language sources. The only part that can be legitimately cut to make it shorter is the English translation (which is amateur and is provided only as a courtesy to readers who don't know Russian), but somehow I doubt this is what you had in mind :) As for a shorter/more useful link, by all means do it if you can find one of equal or higher quality (and worldtimezone.com, created and maintained by some unknown person, definitely does not qualify as one, despite all its accolades).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 3, 2012; 14:24 (UTC)

Map marker too far north in Kamchatka Krai

The template appears to be placing the marker on the map too far north for locations in Kamchatka Krai. For example, in the article on Tilichiki the marker is well inland when in fact it is found on the coast some way to the south. The coordinates used on that page are fine, so that's not the problem. Dendrite1 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks that at some point someone replaced the map in {{Location map Russia Kamchatka Krai}} but forgot to update the coordinates of the edges. I've made corrections; please double-check. Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 21, 2013; 15:36 (UTC)

Elevation

Has elevation ever been discussed as something to add to the infobox? Thricecube 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is the absence of reliable sources to reference it for the places in Russia (and no, various statscruft websites don't count :)). Plus, is this really something so important that it has to be in the infobox?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 14:24 (UTC)