User talk:Rif Winfield/Archive 7

Administrative divisions of Crimea

Thank you for your edits, but I had to revert them since I do not see how they potentially can improve the article. The outline of the article is now in line with all other articles on the administrative divisions of Russia, see e.g. Administrative divisions of Pskov Oblast. If you want to make major changes pls discuss them first.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The main thrust of these changes would be to tabulate the areas and populations of all of the first-level divisions of Crimea, which did not appear in this article or anywhere else in Wikipedia. I have spent several hours ascertaining and inserting these into the article. You have now removed all this information! Rif Winfield (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It is easy to return the info correcting the markup which you have broken, I just do not understand why it should be there. Are you planning to edit in a similar way other 84 articles on the administrative divisions of the federal subjects of Russia?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The simple answer to your question is ... yes, in due course. The articles on the 84 federal subjects (existing prior to this April) of Russia are deficient in that there is no easy way for the Wikipedia reader to note the areas and populations of any territory below the federal subject level (i.e. at raion and municipality level), except by the laborious means of accessing the separate articles on each raion and municipality. This information (from the Russian census of 14 October 2010) needs to be tabulated somewhere within the articles of the federal subjects. I would hope that in revising your articles on the other 84 federal subjects you might have arranged to insert appropriate demographic tables.

In the meantime, Crimea (and Sebastopol) are in rather a different situation (I'm not referring to the validity or otherwise of their incorporation into Russia) in that the Census data and population estimates for the subdivisions are those recorded by Ukraine (and it will take some time before Russia conducts a fresh census to compile replacement data).

Kindly therefore return the two statistical tables which you reverted (I was partway through compiling the second - raion - table when you reverted my contribution, but will complete it once the table is reinserted); you will note that I have not altered the lists of the component towns and urban-type settlements which previously formed the entirety of these sections. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Let us have the opinion of @Ezhiki: first. (Please also note that the area data are unsourced, and the population data are sourced to 2012 whereas the 2013 data are available, and I have already inserted them in most articles on Crimea).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The area data is (correctly) attributed in these tables to the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine (Russia has not conducted a survey of Crimean territory). I am happy for you to substitute 2013 official estimates for 2012 ones if you have them. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that all lists on the administrative divisions of Russia need to be re-worked and not just formatting-wise—there is plenty of outdated and incorrect information that needs to be taken care of. And as far as the formatting goes, the list solution was never intended as anything more than a quick and dirty starting point. That said, it makes little sense to start converting those lists into pretty tables before the factual aspect is addressed—it is so much easier to correct a list than to fight with the table markup. This is especially true for Crimea, which is possibly the least suitable page to start such a conversion; not only because of Crimea's unique disputed status, but also because if Russia continues to control it, there is bound to be a flurry of administrative-territorial changes fairly soon. And again, when that starts, it would be easier to update a list than a table. Throwing a few test cases around wouldn't hurt either (and Rif, it's always great to have an extra brain and a pair of hands where such things are concerned).
Returning back to the tables, perhaps adding them at the bottom in a separate section could be an interim solution acceptable to all? All columns will obviously need to be sourced properly, and some of duplicate information can probably be removed (such as names in languages other than English). That the terminology in those tables does not match the terminology in the list is also something that needs to be looked at. Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 16, 2014; 17:02 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. We can indeed add the tables at the end of the sections indicating the area, the population, and the administrative center, it this is an acceptable solution to everybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, most helpful. Might I additionally suggest one further formatting change (to apply to all Russia's federal subjects). At present your list of administrative areas includes details of all the towns and urban-type settlements which are under the jurisdiction of a municipality or of a raion. It seems to me that it would be more appropriation if those third-tier administrations were included within the article on that (second-tier) municipality or raion, rather than within the article on the administration of the oblast. This change (which would mirror the way in which lower-level administrations are treated for other nations in Wikipedia) would simplify the lists enormously; at present, trying to work one's way through a collection of sub-subdivisions which can (in the case of some oblasts) be several pages long is daunting and off-putting to those readers who are simply trying to access basic data about the way that oblast in divided. We have to remember that the average reader accessing Wikipedia is NOT a person who is necessarily familiar with the complexities of tiered administration (i.e. keep it simple for the reader). In my experience, this is where tabulated data is easier than lengthy lists.

Your observation regarding the terminology in the tables not matching the terminology in the list is interesting, since I took the terminology I used in column 2 of my tables (the 'local name') directly from the list. I only made two structural changes. Firstly, I placed brackets (parentheses) around the words raion, mis'krada or misto in columns 1 and 6, and around the corresponding Cyrillic name in column 2; I believe this makes the translation easier to follow. Secondly, for raion names in column 1, I began to use I hadn't finished the formatting) the Russian form of the raion names (e.g. Bilohirskyi raion) since this was a more accurate translation of the Cyrillic names in column 2 than as shown in the list (i.e. to write Bilohirsk raion is not correct). Incidentally, I have omitted the diacritic mark before the "k" (except in writing the word "mis'krada", I note) as I think this is a needless complexity (and rather off-putting to the general reader), but if you feel it is essential to retain these I shall happily comply.

Notwithstanding your comments, I believe that starting with the Crimea Republic is appropriate simply because it (with Sebastopol) is the latest addition to the list of federal subjects and therefore has not yet 'settled' into the pattern used for the previously-established (before April) 94 federal subjects. I agree there is always the possibility of reversion to Ukraine, and of changes in the administrative structure within Ukraine (and I know of no-one who thinks that Sebastopol will remain a separate federal subject in the long term, but will be merged into a joint administration for the whole peninsula); but since the addition is so new, it makes sense for us to reformat here the structure which will subsequently be applied to all the other federal subjects.

Finally, I am happy to join you both in the editing of the articles on the federal subjects, but I do have limited time and lots of other commitments (in Wikipedia alone, I'm trying to revise the series of articles on Indonesian regencies and cities - the second-tier administrations; and I have non-Wikipedia obligations which must take priority - you will note from my user page that I write rather lengthy 'real' reference books (as exampled here) as well - and have publishing commitments to meet). So I need to make clear that my contributions on Russian federal subjects will be spread over a lengthy period of time. Rif Winfield (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Ezhiki is unlikely to respond until Monday so let us wait. You raise many issues which need to be discussed before we start editing the articles. Hopefully by Monday I will switch the whole of Crimea to the 2013 population statistics.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy that we do so. Meantime, I should point out to both of you that the current form of listing provides for many discrepancies in connection with administrative areas. Let us take Simferopol municipality as one example, simply because it is the first entity which appears on the list in Administrative divisions of Crimea. In the list given in the "Administrative divisions of Crimea" article, the sub-divisions are simply given as one town (Simferopol) and 4 urban-type settlements. In the article on Simferopol municipality it is stated that the municipality is divided into 3 districts. It then goes on separately to say that there are 4 towns (apart from Simferopol "the capital") and one village. Finally the article on Simferopol (town? "misto"?) says that this level is composed of 3 districts, four towns and a village. Clearly rationalisation is required to eliminate such discrepancies, and more precise/consistent use of terminology. My solution would be that the list of all the sub-divisions of Simferopol (not just the town/urban parts) should be consolidated under the article on that municipality, and nowhere else. I also think that we need to be more precise about use of the word "district" - whether we mean "raion" or "okrug", for example. Perhaps you can think about these points over the weekend. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is just because some of the articles were written by people not fully understanding the subject. The four towns are in fact the four urban-type settlements. So that the Simferopol municipality consists of one town/city (Russian and Ukrainin laws do not make any distinction) of Simferopol, four urban-type settlements and possibly one village (I do not have sources about the village, but I did not try hard). The city of Simferopol may be indeed divided into three districts but this is a different type of divisions - for example, these districts do not have any elected authorities etc. Therefore these districts should be mentioned in the article on Simferopol but I am not sure there is room for them in this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Unsurpringly, I had worked out that the four 'towns' were in fact the urban-type settlements of the same names (are these actually counted as "urban okrugs"?). My point was that it is discrepancies such as these that need to be be sorted out. Also it is irrelevent whether the "three districts" have any elected authority or not, if they are - as I presume - sub-divisions of the municipality's territory; they still need to be listed as sub-divisions. I would disagree with you that the three districts "should be mentioned in the article on Simferopol"; instead, I would argue that they should be mentioned in the article on Simferopol municipality (you can see now why precision is required in constructing these articles). And is the one "village" (Bitumne) administered as the same tier of authority as the okrugs, albeit with different powers? Rif Winfield (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Rif, this is exactly why the Crimea list is the worst possible candidate for starting a re-design. Not only the articles on Ukraine's divisions are in a pathetic state overall (with various articles using different terms to refer to the same concept, with lots of mistranslations, and with general lack of anything resembling consistency), these divisions are also not entirely compatible with Russia's divisions. Crimea is currently using the Ukrainian laws for everything, except where they are in direct contradiction with Russian laws, and it will take years for things of lower importance (which is what the administrative divisions are) to catch up (and that is only if by some serendipitous development Ukraine doesn't manage to restore control). And the municipal divisions are a whole other animal, which is best left for later—the entities of municipal incorporation are very different in Ukraine and Russia. So different, in fact, that it might even make sense to keep them in separate lists (especially after Russia explicitly extends the municipal structure used in Russia to Crimea).

To address your earlier question with regards to all Russian lists ("to relegate all third tier divisions to second-tier articles and to remove them from the lists altogether"), this is pretty much what's already being done. There are, in general, three types of third tier administrative divisions in Russia (corresponding to two types of third tier municipal divisions): towns of district significance, urban-type settlements of district significance, and selsoviets. The latter, where they exist, are the most numerous and have never been enumerated in the lists; only their counts are included. The first two, however, are not as numerous and are much more important than selsoviets (including from the encyclopedic point of view). The localities they are formed around tend to be industrial, historical, and cultural centers of significant regional importance, and I'd argue that retaining them in the list is a pretty darn good idea. I can see how in cases where there are lots of them they can seem overwhelming, but once again, this is mostly due to the bulleted nature of the list. I'm sure it is possible to come up with a format that can accommodate this information without doing much harm to overall readability. No list should be re-designed until it's first updated and corrected (which is most of them), but that doesn't mean we can't throw a few ideas around or to pick one list as a guinea pig (just please let it not be Crimea :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 19, 2014; 19:26 (UTC)

I accept your points (and am already aware of the structure of the lower-level units) although I think there are some contradictions within your second paragraph. You say that relegating all third tier divisions to second-tier articles and removing them from the lists altogether (in first-tier articles) is "is pretty much what's already being done" but at present this is not so. If we can proceed with this step (transferring the named towns and urban-type settlements of district significance, with their names, and the quantity of selsoviets, without their names, to the individual articles dealing with the raions, then removing this info from the article on the federal subjects), as well as tabulating the (2013) populations of second-tier units within the first-tier articles on the federal subjects, I should be entirely satified and am happy to help with this process (time allowing). In view of your objections to using Crimea as a "guinea pig", might I nominate Krasnodar Krai as a suitable federal subject for our first efforts? Rif Winfield (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Experimentally, I have inserted a table of second-tier units' areas and populations into the article on Adygea, to show what I recommend can be done for each federal subject. In doing so, I have not altered at all the existing separate article of List of administrative and municipal divisions of the Republic of Adygea. The demographic data (2010 Census and 2013 Estimates) are those provided by the State Committee of the Russian Federation on Statistics, while I have inserted the territorial extent (in sq.kms) for each district from the figures given within the existing articles for those districts. If you are happy in principal with the Adygea table (if you can improve on the area figures, I would be appreciative), I trust that the same can then be done for other federal subjects. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I should have probably shared the part of my long-term to-do list dealing with the administrative divisions with both of you. As it happens, the order which you suggest above aligns somewhat with how the tasks on my to-do list are ordered. Currently, I'm going through all the articles about the localities which constitute the core of the towns of district significance and adding the administrative and municipal status information. That taken care of (I'm about half-way through), the same will need to be done for the urban-type settlements. Then, the lists on the administrative-territorial divisions will need to be updated to use sources more accurate than OKATO (on which most of these lists are currently based). With that taken care of, it would become easy to provide summaries in the "Administrative divisions" section of the main articles, similarly to how you've just done with Adygea.

I do have a couple of issues with the Adygea's summary, though, the main being that the administrative and municipal divisions are treated as if there is no difference between them. Ideally, the administrative summary should go first, followed by a table of the top-tier administrative divisions. That should be followed by the municipal summary, which would include an explanation of main differences (for Adygea, for example, it would explain that there are no third-tier administrative divisions in the republic but there are third-tier municipal divisions), followed by a table highlighting the main differences between the administrative and municipal borders at the top level of the hierarchy (if there are any). That's how the Adygea's main list is structured, and that's how the rest of the lists will be structured as well, so it makes sense to follow the same scheme in the summary.

Another issue is the areas. In the district articles, they come from a variety of sources (the unreferenced ones are from ru-wiki, if I remember correctly, where they are usually unsourced as well). This may be an OK approach in the district articles (it is, after all, better to have some number than none at all), but it also makes it a bad idea to collect them all in one place and to present them as if they were a coherent set. My feeling is that unless there is one single source in which the area figures are enumerated, the column should not be present in the summary at all. Or, if it is present, each figure needs to be referenced individually (with unsourced numbers marked with "citation needed"). Same goes for the population estimates (the Census numbers are, of course, already pointing to a single source).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 27, 2014; 15:13 (UTC)

Thanks. I must agree with you about the area figures. In fact, I originally produced the table without the area column, as I recognised the point you have mentioned about their lack of a single source. I then added the area column as a trial, and unless you have access to a coherent set of area figures then I would be happy to eliminate the area column entirely. As regards the population columns, these do form a coherent set from one source (the State Committee), and I think that the column heading carrying the citation are an adequate place to quote the source; if you want me to use the same attribution for the Census column I'll happily do so, and in fact I have adjusted the table accordingly.

As you know, the second-order administrative division - reflected in the population figures - does not give details of the urban-type settlements (of district subordinence), whose populations are included in the district totals. I think this is how it should be, and any mention of the populations of the urban-type settlements should be within the districts' own articles. In that sense, I think that the articles on the federal subjects (i.e. the first-order level) do not need to distinguish between the administrative and municipal structures at a lower level; we do need to try and make things simple for the general reader. Rif Winfield (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted your convoluted breakdown of administrative divisions in the Krasnodar Krai article. It's fortunate that I bothered to check your talk page in order to establish what you're trying to accomplish. Firstly, I would not consider this form of breakdown to be of any value in a summary section with a hatnote to the main article. Secondly, please use edit summaries in order to inform other contributors of what you are tweaking and why. Personally, I think this should be handled in another manner as it is confusing to the reader (information overload). This content should be provided on the administrative division subject-specific articles. Readers who are interested in investigating how each division, subdivision, etc. breaks down will follow the hatnote to the relevant article. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not vandalise what was a simple and straightforward correction to factual inaccuracies in the section. The only change I made was to separate those towns of federal subject subordinance from those of raion subordinance. The existing statement that the krai is divided into "thirty-eight districts (raions) and twenty-six cities/towns" is factually inaccurate - it is divided into thirty-eight districts and fifteen cities/towns of federal subject subordinance. The other eleven towns are within the raions (i.e. they are of raion subordinance), and are subject to the raion administration, in the same way as the urban-type settlements. It is hardly confusing!

What is needed here additionally is a table of the populations of the districts and cities of krai subordinance, in the same way as has been done for each of the first-order divisions of other large countries. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, do not call it "vandalism", particularly as you didn't even bother to provide an edit summary of any description. I'm not a mind reader and have no way of knowing that you've been discussing it with Ymblanter and Ezhiki. A simple edit summary pointing to this section of your talk page for input would have been informative.

Secondly, the original summary was informative enough for a summary. Compare:
"Krasnodar Krai is administratively divided into thirty-eight districts (raions ) and twenty-six cities/towns. The districts are further subdivided into towns, urban-type settlements, and rural okrugs and stanitsa okrugs."
to your:
"Krasnodar Krai is administratively divided into thirty-eight districts (raions ) and fifteen cities/towns of district status. The districts are further subdivided into eleven towns of district subordinance, twelve urban-type settlements, and 397 rural okrugs and stanitsa okrugs."

To be honest, I was waiting for, "and a partridge in a pear tree" to follow. As I say, this is my opinion. If Ymblanter and Ezhiki disagree, I'm quite happy to restore your detailed version. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would need to go to the books, and Ezhiki likely knows the numbers by heart. Let us wait for him first.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

"Detailed" is hardly applicable for such a simple insertion; simply entering the quantity of each form of third-order division into the second sentence is a minor change; separating the 15 towns of district status from those 11 of district subordinance is correcting an error in the original first sentence. And incidentally, this error occurs in every one of the articles on the federal subjects. And there are no "partridges in pear trees" involved - I have not added to the three categories of component units within the raions. Rif Winfield (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Rif's summaries weren't overly detailed; in fact, they are pretty much what they would be had I gone through this part of my to-do list and done them myself. That said, it needs to be made sure that the terminology used in these summaries, in the main lists, and elsewhere in Wikipedia is the consistent, and Rif's doesn't look to be. Plus, as I mentioned before, before the summaries can be created, the lists need to be cleaned up. They are all currently based on OKATO, which has numerous discrepancies, errors, and plain outdated information compared to what the real state of the matter is. Krasnodar Krai, for example, is administratively divided into 38 districts and 15 Cities/Towns (with "City"/"Town" being the specific term used in Krasnodar Krai to refer to the entities which in other federal subjects may be known as "city/town of krai significance" or "city/town under krai jurisdiction"). The number of "Towns" (yes, exact same term, although of course it would be wikilinked to a different target) into which districts are divided is 11, the number of "settlement okrugs" (administrative divisions with an urban-type settlement at their cores) is also 11 (plus there is one subordinated to Adlersky City District of Sochi), and the total number of rural okrugs and stanitsa okrugs is 399, of which only 358 are the divisions of the districts, while 22 are subordinated to Cities/Towns (on the krai level) directly and 19 are subordinated to Cities/Towns (on the krai level) via a city district. And yes, each of these numbers can and must be properly sourced. In all, it makes little sense to waste time on summarizing lists which require a lot of preliminary work and corrections to be done. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2014; 16:39 (UTC)

Thanks, Ezhiki. Yes, the OKATO lists are inaccurate, but these numbers already appear in the parallel Wikipedia article on "Administrative Divisions of Krasnodar Krai" (and similar articles on the other federal subjects), and I didn't wish to be accused of providing conflicting data. If it is inappropriate to put these figures into the main article on Krasnodar Krai because they are unreliable, then it is equally erroneous to include them in the article on "Administrative Divisions of Krasnodar Krai"; yet that's where they already are. You cannot argue both ways.

My primary intention was to correct the misinformation which exists by statements such as "Krasnodar Krai is administratively divided into thirty-eight districts (raions) and twenty-six cities/towns", when - as Ezhiku agrees - there are only fifteen cities of federal subject significance within the krai. It is this factually incorrect statement (for this krai and for all the other federal subjects) which needs to be changed, because whoever created these articles (or at least wrote the administrative division references in these articles) failed to distinguish between cities/towns of federal subject significance and those of raion subordinance. Incidentally, this also has resulted in the towns of raion subordinance seemingly being double-counted in some totals.

If you don't like the terminology I have used, suggest more accurate terms. Remember that they have to be understood by readers comparing the terms with articles on the subdivisions of other countries. Unless they're equally misleading, I'll go along with any accurate terminology. So let's stop nit-picking, and get these corrections actually done. The next step (for all the federal subjects) is to insert the latest tables of populations (Census figures plus 2013 estimates) for all the second-order divisions. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It does seem a little bit like I'm trying to argue it both ways, doesn't it? :) Let me clarify. It is true that the OKATO-based lists are often inaccurate and outdated, but they are nevertheless acceptable under the reliable sources guideline. OKATO is considered to be a reliable source, after all. What I'm trying to say is that although it is an acceptable, reliable source (with somewhat inaccurate information), we do have access to equally reliable (in the WP:RS sense) and far more accurate and up-to-date sources to work with. As you can see with Krasnodar Krai, some of the discrepancies are fairly substantial. It simply seems counterproductive to proliferate and then maintain "reliable inaccurate" data when they can be replaced with "reliable accurate" data, which can then be used to create summaries. Doing the summaries now almost feels like like putting the cart before the horse...

That said, for the summaries which are already there and which don't match the information in the main lists, I have no problem whatsoever with syncing them, although myself, I would have simply deleted them (again, as to not proliferate information which will need to first be corrected anyway).

Finally, as for the terminology, I did not say you used inaccurate terms, I said "inconsistent". As you probably know, for any administrative concept in Russia, a great number of possible translations exists, with none being more accurate or inaccurate than others. On top of that, even in Russian, the terms for divisions differ greatly from one federal subject to another. I hope you'll agree that maintaining consistency in such an environment is of utmost importance—Russian divisions are awfully confusing as they are, even to Russians!

I previously collected the translations of all such terms in the city of federal subject significance, town of district significance, urban-type settlement#Administrative divisions, and selsoviet articles (only currently used terms are included, but there are numerous others which have been used historically). If you could use the terms listed there as you work, I, for one, will be one happy camper with no cause to complain :) If any of the terms on those pages sound artificial or confusing (which some of them very well may be), we can always discuss other options on individual basis. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2014; 17:47 (UTC)

OK, then. As you know, in Russian there is no clear distinction between the words "city" and "town" (a problem which can occur with other languages as well, in French for example). So I have been wary about using the term "city" when dealing with a municipality of federal subject significance, and the term "town" when dealing with a municipality of district (or city of raion equivalence) significance. If you feel that these terms are OK, I should be most delighted to adopt them; however, I am aware from long experience (including Wikipedia experience of other nations) that many contributors (and readers) intermix the terms "city" and "town" without distinguishing between the two; in your own USA, for example, the word 'city' is sometimes applied to small places whose populations would barely qualify them as villages here in the UK. However, I would gently suggest that the word "significance" is quite imprecise, subjective and open to considerable misinterpretation; could we substitute "subordinance" instead, as this would convey the sense of the correct administrative level? Better still, in statements mentioning both the districts and the cities of federal subject subordinance (i.e. level 2 administrative bodies), cannot we say "cities of equivalent status"?

I now propose to alter the first sentence quoted above to "Krasnodar Krai is administratively divided into thirty-eight districts (raions) and fifteen cities of equivalent status". I will not put any numbers into the second sentence, or make any changes to them. You will recall that I originally suggested that any reference to these level 3 administrative bodies (i.e. those within raions or cities of equivalent status) could well be dropped entirely from these articles on the federal subjects; and if we can have a concensus on this point the second sentence can be deleted entirely. Rif Winfield (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course there is no difference between "city" and "town" in Russian, and yes, I'm aware that many contributors will not think twice before using either term. It does not, however, mean we can't attempt to be consistent. So far (and by "so far" I mean at least in the past ten years, during which this approach came up and was discussed several times) we've been use "city" for cities/towns with populations of over 100,000 and "town" for those which don't hit that mark (the same term is used as a part of the term for the corresponding administrative division for which the locality is the core). It is quite an arbitrary cutoff, of course, but one that has worked pretty well in practice. A part of the reason why this approach has been successful is because in translation from Russian to English the population size tends to be the determining factor on which the choice of the term depends ("city" is used for larger localities while "town" is used for smaller ones). This is unlike the US or the UK, where the terms normally have a strict legal meaning and usually are not a function of size at all.

The word "significance" (as in "city/town of XXX significance") was actually selected after a lot of deliberation, after looking at a wide array of English-language sources dealing with the concept (or, more often, mentioning it in passing). "Subordinance", I would say, is a close second, as far as generic descriptions go. Neither one is terribly intuitive to readers unfamiliar with the concepts being described. More importantly, "subordinance" may actually be misleading in modern context; in fact, quite a few federal subjects changed their terminology from using "город районного/краевого/etc. подчинения" to "город районного/краевого/etc. значения" in recent years. The main reason is that while the hierarchy, per se, is still in place, there is little to nothing in terms of formal subordinance (as opposed to the Soviet years). The hierarchy itself is more about a separation of duties these days, not about who can give orders to whom.

"Cities of equivalent status" would only works when districts are discussed in the same sentence or paragraph, which is often not the case. It does not work very well as a title either ("city of federal subject significance" is an artificial, descriptive term as well, but at least it is self-contained and the readers' first question would not be "equivalent to what?" when they see it). It may work in summaries, but I feel there is little reason not to use the translation of the actual term used in the federal subjects. On the other hand, when that term happens to be "City" ("Town"), it may make sense to elaborate on the "equivalent status" separately, as is done in this section, for example.

"Equivalent status" concerns aside, I have no problem with your proposal overall. The majority of the discrepancies in the OKATO-based lists are confined to the third tier, and while terminology might occasionally be off for the second tier as well, the counts, I believe, are mostly accurate. I'll be willing to help double-check the counts in the summaries as you work on them, if you wish. I'd love to start straightening out the divisions list to take them off the OKATO needle, too, but there is a reason why I've been postponing doing it for so long—there is a lot of preparatory work involved, and the task is not as quick and easy as it may seem to be. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2014; 19:56 (UTC)

Right, we can make some progress. As I said, I was only planning to use "cities of equivalent status" in sentences which mentioned first the districts as well. I really think that "significance" is meaningless at worse, and subject to the reader's opinion at best. It certainly does not indicate separate assigned funcions at level-2 or level-4 (it is the division of functional responsibilities between the levels we are concentrating on, not "about who can give orders to whom" as you indicated). How about "cities of district equivalence", again simply in those sentences which mention the districts as well? Rif Winfield (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, and happy editing, Rif Winfield. Once you have sourced, working models in place it would still be appreciated if you could provide edit summaries, even if only brief, generic ones. At least I'm now aware of what you're trying to accomplish, whereas other editors patrolling for vandalism, etc. are not going to be in the loop. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Gratitude Galley

Just added[1] some info on "frigate galleys" to galley#Definition and terminology based on your work. Just wanted to show my appreciation for your scholarship.

Btw, is "frigate galley" a term you came up with, or has it been used by others as well? It's a very practical term. Do you know if the Royal Navy back in the 1670-90s referred to them as just "galleys", btw?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Not simply my term; the label of "galley frigate" (note NOT the other way round) was the official Navy term for such vessels. Specifically, there were three of them - the James Galley and Charles Galley of 1676 and the Mary Galley of 1687 - rated as Fourth Rates in the navy's rating system, but re-rated to Fifth Rates in 1691. Note there was never a Tiger Galley, a name in your article which I cannot imagine how it originated (so I suggest you might like to change that). All three were subsequently rebuilt, but lost their specialist design characteristics and became more like the normal frigates, while retaining the "Galley" suffix in their name only. They were not referred to as simply "galleys" (unlike in the French Navy, whose Levant Fleet maintained a long tradition of galleys). Nevertheless, it's worthwhile mentioning that most smaller warships of the period in all navies were fitted with sweep ports so that they could be rowed on occasion; this is particularly true of the (unrated) contemporary sloops, but most of the Fifth and Sixth Rates could also be propelled by oars.

One final point, in the context of the American War of Independence. You mention the row-galleys; in fact, galley was the conventional term, in spite of their dissimilarity to the classic Mediterranean (or Baltic) designs; and these were operated by several naval forces on the Atlantic Seaboard, the British as well as the American forces. You might note there were also half-galleys, which were the single-masted equivalent of the (two-masted) galleys. Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 05:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know why I reversed "galley frigate" all of a sudden. Or imagined Tiger Galley. I guess night editing is to blame... Thanks pointing out my unintenational fibs. :-)

Regarding sweep ports on small vessels: this only affected the names of the larger ships, right? I don't recall seeing more general usage of "galley" for sloops and such.

Regarding row galleys: I've noted the use of just "galley" for these, but I believe it does Wikipedia readers no good to allow this to reflect our actual categorizing and internal linking. It certainly is quite useless to actually classify them in infoboxes as galleys.[2] As you can see at Category:Galleys of the United States Navy, I emptied it and redirected to Category:Row galleys of the United States Navy. Ship terminology hasn't exactly been super-consistent throughout early modern history, and as far as I know, we write articles first and foremost about ship types, not nautical terms. It seems much more useful to separate the American "galleys" category-wise, but explain the terminology in detail in the articles. Otherwise galley would have to cover in some detail not just the many variants of the Mediterranenan type, but about a dozen other vessels like birlinns, turumas or even longships (see reference to Casson in galley#Definition and terminology).

Peter ^Isotalo 07:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Just so long as you note that (a) these Atlantic Seaboard galleys were not only used by the American navies (the individual States' naval forces as well as the Continental Navy), but equally by the British Navy; and (b) that, contrary to the wording in your category page, the "row-galleys" were propelled by either oars or sails (that's why they carried brig or cutter rigs) and more usually the latter for lengthy voyages (which could be the full length of the American east coast); the oars were only used over short distances (bear in mind that the weather along the American east coast was markedly more difficult for oared craft that the Mediterranean or Baltic). Rif Winfield (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat similar arguments could be made for Mediterranenan galleys as well; they certainly sailed when possible. And the oared American "galleys" aren't very significant in the scheme of things, even if they were used by Americans and British. It's likely that more actual galleys (and oared sailing hybrids) were built and fought in the Baltic c. 1788-1809 than in North America. I'm guessing that the battles were bigger, with more men, materiel and vessels. And that's just for that particular 20-year period of Russo-Swedish conflicts.

My thought is that "row galley" should function as a sort of disambiguator since I'm pretty sure the term was used alongside "galley". Another name could certainly be used, but keeping it separate is essential. The place to explain the terminology should be in the articles. Any straight classifications with links to galley are of on dubious value to anyone, be they navy buffs of average readers.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My concern is with factual inaccuracies which, if uncorrected, will perpetuate misunderstandings. Your reference in the category page to "United States Navy ships that were rowed by crewmen, instead of using sail." implies that the row-galleys ONLY used oars for propulsion, whereas, as stated, most voyages were made under sail (you are correct in saying this also applied to Mediterranean and Baltic galleys). This is, we have agreed, untrue. My suggestion is simply that you alter "instead of" to "as well as", or perhaps "as an alternative to their sails".

Might I point out another inaccuracy in your heading, in the use of the term "United States Navy". The USN was established in 1794, and certainly did not exist during the War of American Independence. Navy forces during the period 1775-1783 consisted of the Continental Navy (established by Congress) and the naval forces of the individual States. So refering to the row-galleys of 1776 as "United Sates Navy" is factually wrong. Might I again suggest that "American naval forces" would be a more accurate name to use rather than "United States Navy" for a group of vessels which ranged in date from 1775 to the 1860s.

You are doubtless aware that the Congress adopted the name of "United States of America" by resolution of 11 July 1778, when it became the official name of the federated states. The acronym for the prefix for its warships during the period up to 1783 (when the Continental Navy was abolished) would be "CNS", while the galleys operated by individual states' naval forces should use a prefixed acronym depending upon which Sate you are referring to. Otherwise you run the risk that someone (not me, I quickly state), sometime, is going to reverse your edit for entirely justified reasons. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree pretty much 100%. Just note that I didn't create the category. I also didn't really notice the specific row galley definition until you pointed it out. My concern was merely linking and categorizing with regard to galley and Category:Galleys. So thanks for pointing out the problems. I tweaked the definition and moved the relevant vessels over to a new Continental Navy category.

I'll stay away from any prefix discussions, though. It's simply not my within my field of interest. I agree with you that "CNS" seems more appropriate, though.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I have tweaked the galley#Definition and terminology paragraph slightly, which I trust meets with your approval. Rif Winfield (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Very much so. I always value and welcome your input. If you feel so inclined, please keep tweaking. If you're interested, check out the articles on the four types of archipelago frigates that I've been working on for a while. Hemmema and udema are already GAs and I'm looking to make a push for FA status. I will nominate hemmema as soon as battle of Öland is promoted.

Oh, and I'm drafting a new article about the French galley corps in my own user space: User:Peter Isotalo/the corps.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave the Scandinavian vessels alone for a while, if you don't mind. FYI, I'm currently working on a couple of books on French Warships in the Age of Sail (to complement my series on British Warships in the Age of Sail). The second volume (covering 1786-1861) will be produced first, to be published next year. The earlier volume (1629-1786) will follow on later, and in this one the French galleys of the 'Levant Fleet' (you will be aware this was administered independently of the French Navy for much of the 17th Century) will deserve a separate full chapter. So I'll be most interested in your article on the galley corps. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Awesome sauce! I've been having trouble finding English-language sources on the French galleys to complement Bamford's Fighting Ships and Prisons. I can handle digitalized French refs to some degee with Google Translate, but printed books are pretty hopeless. So I'm definitely looking forward to that second volyme.

I'll let you know when I let the article loose in article space.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We actually have an article on the Levant fleet. But it's practically orphaned and devoid of references. :-|

Peter ^Isotalo 16:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Rif Winfield! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hired armed cutter Admiral Mitchell

Hi Rif, Do you happen to know what happened to her after the Navy bought her in 1806 and commissioned her in 1807 as Sir Andrew Mitchell? I haven't been able to find out anything about her service as an HMS or subsequent fate. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, A. Very little info in Admiralty records on her. She was commissioned in the Leeward Islands in 1807 (note "added 19 Feb 1807") armed with 12 x 12pdr carronades, but there is nothing recorded after 1807. Interestingly, she was recorded as a schooner on purchase, rather than a cutter.Regards, Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add the schooner bit. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. FYI, French Warships in the Age of Sail 1786-1861 is now at the printers, and should be ready by 7th September. To correct the inaccuracies on Amazon, might I add it's 464 pages in length, not the 352 wrongly stated by Amazon. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Amazon have now corrected their misinformation, although the illustration on their website still shows the dates on the jacket as "1786-1862" rather than the correct "1786-1861". The actual volume (I now received the initial authors' copy of it) has the right dates on the cover. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Mystery vessel

Hi Rif, Do you perchance have any info regarding Wasp, mentioned in the second notice, first column of this issue of "No. 16548". The London Gazette. 3 December 1811. She was apparently captured by Emerald on 26 July 1810. I would specifically like to know the size and type of this vessel. Thanks for any light you can shed on this matter--Ykraps (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't know if it is the same vessel, but Lloyd's Register for 1810 has the Wasp, brig, S. Abbott, master, 149 tons, launched at Portland, one year old, owner: Massachusetts, trade: Liverpool to Boston. I would interpret the Massachusetts to mean the owner was there, not that the brig belonged to the State of. Difference in the master's name could be an issue, but LR is often stale dated. I would suggest checking for 1811 and 1812 to see if the name of the master changes, or if she disappears. Acad Ronin (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Acad, thanks for your input. I saw the brig on the register but couldn't find anything to tie her to Emerald. She turns up on the 1811 and 1812 list with the same details. What's your thinking with regards to the master's name?--Ykraps (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I think I get you. If she was captured, one would reasonably expect the name of the owner and master to change.--Ykraps (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly what I meant. Between the info in the LR and the capture, the master might well have changed, and possibly the owner. Masters change more frequently than owners as generally when ownership changes, the master changes, but not vice-versa, and even when owenership doesn't change, masters may. Now in the case of Wasp, after her capture she would have been sold, but the process of libeling in Admiralty Court would take time. When she was finally sold, probably in 1811, or possibly even later, certainly master and owner would have changed, but name may have also. If so, this would make it very hard to trace what happened to her post-capture. Fortunately, Wasp appears to be an uncommon name for merchant vessels, so if her name didn't change, and her new owners registered her with Lloyd's, it would be relatively easy to see what happened. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Got your book for my birthday today as a present from my family! (British Warships in the Age of Sail 1603-1714) - I must say it's a fantastic piece of work! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 00:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rif Winfield. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Industry

Hi Rif, according to your book "British Warships in the Age of Sail 1793–1817" (p.196), on 25/07/1778, HMS Pearl (1762) captured the 26-gun Industry. Do we know what happened to her? I assume she was taken into service but can find no record of an HMS Industry of that time. It is possible her name was changed of course but there doesn't appear to be any other Industry so it wouldn't have been necessary. Thanks for any info you can give. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC).

• There is no indication that the Industry was taken into RN service or bought for the Navy at any time, certainly she was not taken in under that name. You are correct in that there was no "HMS Industry" around this era. Her origins and subsequent fate after her capture are not known to me. Rif Winfield (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  Okay, no worries, thanks anyway.--Ykraps (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Cornet bomb

Hi Rif, Happy New Year and I hope the second French book is going well. I have found a "Cornet bomb" in Lloyd's Register for 1776. She was launched on the River in 1740, underwent good repairs in 1769, 71, and 75, and apparently was sold in 1776 to become Adventure. I have found references to her sailing in a squadron from Gi9braltar to Martinique, bringing in a prize in a prize in the early 1740s, the Admiralty trying to sell her in 1747 (London Gazette). She was of 310 tons (Lloyd's Register) or 275 tons (Admiralty). I couldn't find her in the National Maritime Museum database, Colledge, or in the index of your 1708-1792 book. Do you know anything about her? Thanks, and regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Happy New Year. Yes, the new French Warships in the Age of Sail 1626 - 1786 if progressing well; the text is almost completed and it should be published later this year. Sad to say, but there has never been an "HMS Cornet" in the Navy, and I strongly suspect that much of the details arise from a mis-spelling of HMS Comet, a bomb which was launched in 1742 on the Thames. Best wishes! Rif Winfield (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought about that too. The two bits I have trouble reconciling is the 1740 build date with the 1742 bomb, and the 1756 participation of the "Cornet bomb" in the squadron that sailed from Gibraltar to Martinique. Colledge has a 1756 8-gun galley, and it could have made the voyage, but you have no suitable vessel at that time. The NMM database conflates the 1782 galley and 1756 galley, and the 1782 galley and the 1777 sloop. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

HMS Unity (1665)

Hi, could you have a look at this (unsourced) article again? It seems to contradict or overlap with Dutch ship Eendracht (1655), the flagship of the Dutch navy from 1655 until June 1665. It's unlikely that the Dutch navy would have another Eendracht or Eendragt in February 1665... Thanks, Kleon3 (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC).

• Unfortunately there was more than one ship of this name at the same date. And this was more common than not! Please remember that there was not a single "Dutch" Navy throughout this period (a situation which continued until the French occupation of 1796); in effect there were five naval forces, each maintained as a separate entity with a distinct Admiralty with its own naming practices. To reiterate, there were (from north to south) - Friesland Admiralty (serving the province of that name); the North Holland (or Noorderkwartier) Admiralty (serving the area of Holland lying to the north of Amsterdam; the Amsterdam Admiralty (biggest of the five); the Maas Admiralty (serving the Rotterdam area); and the Zeeland Admiralty (serving the province of that name). Each Admiralty ordered, built, named, equipped and manned its own ships, and each had its own command structure with its own flagships, Admirals and other appoined officers. The Admirals appointed by each Admiralty even decided whether or not their ships would join with those of the other Admiralties in certain battles.
• The ship described in the article on HMS Unity (1665) was the ship Eendracht (the name usually rendered as Eendragt) of the Zeeland Admiralty, built around 1665 and captured by the English in the same year. The ship described in the article on Dutch ship Eendracht (1655) was the Eendracht of the Maas (Rotterdam) Admiralty, a larger vessel completed in 1654 and lost in 1665 at the Battle of Lowestoft. Eendracht was a popular name adopted by each of the five Admiralties independently. Altogether there were at least ten different ships called Eendracht during the 17th century - from all of the five Admiralties. That was not unusual - there were, for comparison, fourteen different ships named Gelderland.
• And just to make matters even more complex, the Dutch East India Company seperately built and named its own vessels - many of which then served in action during the battles of the Anglo-Dutch wars. Furthermore the Dutch East India company was not a unified structure, but divided into a number of "Chambers" (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Edam, Enkhuizen, Hoorn, Medemblik, Harlingen, Delft, Monnikendam, Middelburg, Veere, Vlissingen ("Flushing" to the English) and Zierikzee), each of which arranged the building, naming and operation of its own vessels.
• For complete details, I would recommend James Bender's Dutch Warship in the Age of Sail 1600-1714. Regards, Rif Winfield. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

About the Central Java regencies/cities list

About the Central Java regencies/cities list, I was wondering if you have yet figured out the groupings of the regencies on the north side, just like you did for the south side. But if you like, I can try to help out and re-modify a bit about it. Lemme know your thoughts. jlog3000 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Please try. I know that under the former Dutch East Indies administration there were five regions (gewesten is the word for 'region' in Dutch), and that Surakarta and Yogyakarta had the status of autonomous regions (called vorstenlanden. I would not claim that nowadays the regions within Central Java hold any current official status. However, there remain areas where local pressure groups are endeavouing to establish new provinces; this is particularly true of Surakarta, which ever since Indonesian independence has campaigned for Surakarta to be re-created as a separate administrative province. Rif Winfield (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)