Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:44, 15 September 2009

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

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 ] 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)