Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Administrative divisions of Adygea

Administrative divisions of Adygea

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

• Support as nominator.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, I appreciate it very much. Many thanks to Ëzhiki, nice job. I wish he does something similar in ru_wiki, unfortunately I don't even have a hope (sigh). MaxiMaxiMax 17:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  I must admit that the feeling and hopes are mutual :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: per WP:WIAFL 1a ("useful") requires that "the list covers a topic ... by bringing together a group of related articles". Most of the Rural okrugs do not have articles. What this list currently does is is bring together articles on the Districts and "Urban-type settlements" in Adygea. If the list was named "Districts of Adygea", this wouldn't be a problem. Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  I understand your concern, but must say it misses the point. "Administrative division" of any Russian federal subject includes, first and foremost, its division into districts, as well as the definition of status of its inhabited localities, which is precisely what this list is about. Lower levels of administrative divisions (in this case rural okrugs) are generally of very little interest, since they are basically nothing more than groups of rural settlements combined for purposes of having a unified local self-government. One can write a perfectly encyclopedic article about districts or about each inhabited locality, but there really nothing to say about rural okrugs besides the fact that they exist and what villages they include. That's the reason why rural okrugs are not formatted as links—whatever one has to say about them would not be sufficient for such an article to be kept.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I withdraw my opposition. Tompw (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: (This is seperate from my above vote - it's some thoughts about possible improvements). I feel the article would benefit from a map showing the location of Adygea within Russia (maybe based on Image:BlankMap-RussiaDistricts.png). Also, it might be worth replacing Image:Adygea districts.png with a trimmed down version showing less of the area around Adygea. Also, some of the items listed under "Administrative division structure" don't have any explanation (what's the difference between an "aul" and a "selo", for instance?) Tompw (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  I am hesitant to overload the list with generic maps. We already have an article on Adygea with the map you are seeking, and that article is linked to from inside the list. As you yourself pointed out, the list deals with the administrative division of Adygea, not with the republic's general overview and description. While I am not strongly against adding such a map, I'd rather hear more than one voice asserting its necessity in this list.

  As for the map already in place, I'll contact its creator (I wasn't one making it). It could probably use some trimming on left and right.

  Finally, both aul and selo are wikilinked, so a reader would have access to further information. Plus, it is already pointed out that there is no difference in status between various types of rural settlements, and that different names are used purely by tradition (see the "rural settlement" bullet under "Administrative division structure"). If you think that is insufficient, I would appreciate your further thoughts and ideas on how to improve it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Agree that the map would benefit from L/R trim and also a larger font size even if this means the words escape outside a district. The use of small fonts elsewhere in the article doesn't seem justified and makes it harder to read. The layout isn't attractive IMO. The map juts into the text in an awkward way (don't think we need another map here BTW). The individual district maps could be folded into the tables as a big cell. Perhaps the district name and its language variants could be handled in a more compact form. Although many of the foreign terms are wikilinked, it would help to briefly explain some of them here so the reader can understand the article at a basic level without having to follow lots of links. The list of rural settlement types could have an explanation after each term. I agree that the rural okrugs probably aren't significant enough for articles. The prose is hard work to read due to the foreign terms and the dense amount of info covered. Perhaps someone can help copyedit to make it flow easier? Colin°^Talk 20:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Colin. You are welcome to tweak the list yourself if you can think of any obvious improvements, by the way. Now, to address some of your points:

• The author of the map intends to tweak it (L/R trim; increase fonts) over this weekend.
• The small type was used purely to emphasize the fourth-level section titles. When regular font is used, it becomes very difficult to see where one subsection ends and another begins. I agree that small type is probably not the best solution, but I can't think of a better one. Ideas are welcome.
• The layout has been a problem from day one. Incorporating district maps into corresponding tables has been tried, and the results were far from appealing (cf. administrative divisions of Moscow where this approach is utilized). I am willing to try any other suggestions, though.
• The types of rural settlements only have different names due to tradition; there is no difference in their status whatsoever (which is already mentioned in the list). Effectively, all these terms are nothing but synonyms. The histories of each type of settlement are different, but they are outside of this list's scope, because, again, none of that matters at present.
• The prose is indeed dense, but that's the nature of the list and the subject it deals with. My assumption is that people interested in this topic would devote some time to studying terminology, because there really is no way one can understand the subject without understanding the terminology first.

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

• Support - not as perfect as it could be (pedant speaking), but really good and deserves FL status. The "bringing together a group of related articles" part has been discussed before and it was agreed that it should not be followed letter-by-letter. There is a number of featured lists that don't bring "blue links" together and I don't see a slightest problem there. Renata 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • OK.... I wasn't aware of that. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured list? relating to this matter. Tompw (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Very good stuff, informational and needed for consistency with other related lists. Should be a FL definitely. - Darwinek 10:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support this good example of what the list should be. We have so many totally useless lists that I never expected to actually find the good one ever. This one is just great! --Irpen 02:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Status update. By now, several people voiced their concern that the list does not explain the difference between various types of rural settlements in Adygea (auls, stanitsas, etc.). I am happy to report that I found an excellent reference that contains just that information put in historical context. I will be adding it to the list during the course of the next several week, and will probably not be done before this nomination expires. If lack of explanations on differences between rural settlements was your only (or main) concern, please do not let it stop from supporting this list for FL status. I give my assurances that this information will be added to the list once I parce the reference source I have.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support Nice list! —dima/s-ko/ 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support `'mikka 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support ( surplus :), and wondering if it makes sense to add one of the "list" categories, for example Category:Lists of country subdivisions ? -- seems to me, it'd help the searches and balance the category tree nicely. Kind regards - Introvert • ~ 07:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Actually, from what I see, Category:Lists of country subdivisions contains lists of subdivisions of whole countries, not divisions of their subdivisions. So, subdivisions of Russia should be in that cat, but "administrative divisions of [federal subject name]" should not be. In any case, if you can think of any other appropriate categories for this list, feel free to add. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks Ëzhiki ~ would Category:Lists of municipalities be a suitable one? or if not, then perhaps a Category:lists of subdivisions of federal subjects (ouch :) - or something along the lines... my point was to try and apply a category that'd branch off the Category:Lists // Category:Geography-related lists so to avoid limiting the category tree for such lists by placing them into their locality's categories only. So which one sounds better, if any at all? - Introvert • ~ 21:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think that Category:Lists of municipalities is a good place for it either. What those lists seem to do is to take a country and list all its lower-level divisions. For Russia, it would be something like "districts of Russia", listing all districts of all federal subjects in Russia, hundreds of them. This list only lists districts of Adygea. I just don't know how to fit it into existing list categories, and I'm afraid I am not very good at categories at any rate. Like I said before, if you think you know which list cat this list best falls into, feel free to add it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)