Category talk:Cities and towns in Russia

Duplets and subcategories containig only a few cities and towns ought to be eliminated.

Category name

Would not it be more practical to name this category as "Cities in Russia"? As an illustration, in the U.S. roughly half of streets are named Streets, and the other half are named Avenues. Still, the List of Streets and Avenues (including Parkways and other less common names) is commonly named as the List of streets. The same is in Russia. Список улиц includes not only улицы, but also проспекты, переулки, и проч. MapLover 05:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea (if only because such change will require a lot of work without providing any tangible benefits), but since you already had a chance to hear my views out on more than one occasion :) at Talk:Subdivisions of Ukraine, I'll stand aside and let others voice their opinions as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You gave me as an example Talk:Subdivisions of Ukraine, but it is too long for me today :) My opinion that the best solution is to have a category "Cities and villages in Russia" similar to "Населённые пункты России", divided into several subcategories like "Cities and villages in Moscow Oblast". In ru_wiki for each article about a city or town we have 2 categories: "Населённые пункты Московской области" ("Cities and villages in Moscow Oblast") and "Города России" ("Cities and towns in Russia") and one navigational template "Города Московской области" ("Cities and towns in Moscow Oblast"). I think this combination of 2 categories and 1 navigational template is the best. MaxiMaxiMax 14:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Max, but I think you'd better read that long discussion first :) "Cities and villages in Russia" variant is bad because it omits both urban-type settlements and rural settlements other than villages. "Settlements in Russia" makes a lot more sense if we go that route, although it is also not a perfect solution (the term "settlement" is still ambiguous). "Inhabited locations in Russia" is the most precise and all-encompassing wording ("населённые пункты"="inhabited locations"), but it may sound too, erm, pedantic for some people.

I like the solution employed in Russian Wikipedia quite a bit, but, unfortunately, it is not easily portable to en_wiki. The problem is with the translations of the terms: "населённые пункты"<>"cities and villages" (see above), and "города"<>"cities and towns" (see Talk:Subdivisions of Ukraine). Hence, we need something else. My ambiguity-hating detail-oriented personality cries for categories such as "Inhabited locations in Russia" (for all kinds of settlements), "Urban settlements with town status in Russia" (for cities/towns), "Urban-type settlements in Russia" (for urban-type settlements), and "Rural settlements in Russia" (for villages and other rural settlements), but I understand that names like these will not evoke a comment more intelligent than "Huh?" from some readers who are just trying to get a general idea of what Russian administrative structure is all about.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see your problem now. For my opinion we don't have to be so sophisticated and precise, KISS :). Usually when you fill a form in a web-site asking about your place you see just "city" despite you live in a town or a village. In Russia we have more than 20 different types of settlements, but we usually name them just as города и сёла. For my first glance just category "Cities in Russia" was okay, and I expected that for most English speakers it includes towns as well. But there was an attempt to create a separate category "Towns in Russia" which could not be consistent since in Russia there is no special town status clearly separated from city status. So, we decided to rename the category to "Cities and towns in Russia", that's why we have what we have. In Commons we have the commons:Category:Cities and villages in Russia and nobody complaints since it is clear for all that it includes all types of places where people live, this method is also used for about a 40 countries there (commons:Category:Cities and villages). That's why I think that 2 categories ("Cities and towns in Russia" for all города России and "Cities and villages in Moscow Oblast" for all населённые пункты в субъекте РФ) could be the good solution for en_wiki as well. Of course if you develop a better and not too complicated category system I will support it. So, my main idea follows Occam's razor principle. Have a nice day! MaxiMaxiMax 03:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Max, I was actually going to complain about that cat's name in Commons, but I just don't have time for it now :) When people don't find what they are looking for in Wikipedia, they don't really complain much, they just walk away elsewhere, creating an illusion that all is fine in our little kingdom. Wikipedia is not just a form on some website; we are an encyclopedia. KISS principle is good, but not when it is used at the expense of precision and, ultimately, quality. Just because most English speakers have no idea what kinds of settlements Russia has is not, in my opinion, a reason to oversimplify the whole cat system. A simpler system would be good for many purposes, but those willing to look further and figure out exactly how Russian administrative structure is composed should not be denied that chance. Balancing simplicity and the wealth of information is what we are trying to do, but so far all solutions have been skewed either one way (too primitive) or another (too elaborated and confusing). Anyway, if you have any further suggestions, you are always welcome to list them here. Thanks for your feedback so far!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Continental categories

I removed category:Cities in Asia and category:Cities in Europe as they violate WP:SUBCAT: "When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions[clarification needed]) to belong to the parent also.".

Putting this category under category:Cities in Europe locates Vladivostok in Europe, which is clearly wrong. It violates WP:V via WP:CAT: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable.". The same is true for every other Asian city in Russia. Between this and category:Cities in Europe, every single member of the category:Cities and towns in Russia was miscategorized. Paradoctor (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone who has commented on this issue at this discussion has disagreed with your position on this. There's no consensus at this stage to remove the categories as parents that you removed, so I've restored them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"no consensus" WP:CONLIMITED

I have justified my edit from the relevant guidelines and policies, see above. See also my edit summary. Paradoctor (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that it's more complicated than just editors simply deciding that a straightforward guideline or policy does not apply. This has been explained previously in this discussion, so I won't belabor it, but I think you do need to realize that just because you believe you are right does not mean that everyone else is necessarily wrong on this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"guideline or policy does not apply" I am beginning to get the impression that you either don't read or don't understand my posts. I did not say that any guideline did not apply, I did the exact opposite: I pointed out that the situation violates the existing guideline.

"wrong on this point" May I return the advice? That's why I started this discussion, to get arguments and facts. It's been a slow day so far. Paradoctor (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I did read your post; I think you misunderstood what I was referring to. I was referring to a situation referenced in WP:CONLIMITED, when a limited set of editors decide that a particular guideline does not apply. My understanding was that you are saying that the guideline does apply and that there is a limited group saying that it does not—thus your invocation of WP:CONLIMITED. If that's not what you meant—then yes, I misunderstood your point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I interpreted "editors" as referring to me, so that's cleared. That leaves me with your reply boiling down to "it's more complicated". Great, that means there are details, facts, precedents. I love details. Cite, quote, point out, refer to, give me the whole enchilada. Paradoctor (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd refer you back to the previous discussion. I know you've said some of the comments there are not relevant or don't answer the issue, but it does provide a good opening summary of the issues involved. The points that Obiwan and postdlf make are not just ones that they hold—I work a fair bit in the category system, and these positions have been upheld by consensus time and time again when they have been raised for discussion. I think one weakness of the past is that these ideas have never really been incorporated into the guidelines for categorization, partly because ideas of retaining flexibility and of having a "good but not perfect" system are difficult to write about in a system that is rules- and black-and-white-oriented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not relevant here. If you think the guideline needs an overhaul, then do it. Here, the topic is this category. Please continue below, this split conversation is a bit tedious. Paradoctor (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not limited to just this category—what may be decided could well have relevance elsewhere, and it certainly does affect how the category system's navigability works overall. And I believe that the issue of whether a written guideline accurately reflects the consensus which has been established in discussions is a detail that is not irrelevant. But anyway, I checked out of the discussion at this stage (see below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know yet what the eventual intent is here. Is it to combine all the contents of Category:Cities in Asia and Category:Cities in Europe so as to replace them both with Category:Cities in Eurasia, or is it just to move the cities categories there for the countries that straddle both Europe and Asia (not only Russia, but also Georgia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.)? Or just Russia for some reason? postdlf (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unclear. Category:Cities in Asia and Category:Cities in Europe could just be made subcategories of Category:Cities in Eurasia, so it doesn't really solve anything from that angle, unless they are completed emptied and the contents placed in Category:Cities in Eurasia. There are quite a few countries that are "bicontinental" in this way. And then there's the issue that some are considered to be in one continent for some purposes and in another one for others (eg, Cyprus, Greenland). My main concern at this stage is—where's the consensus that something needs to be changed? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The intent should be clear from my initial post. To reiterate: the situation before my edit as well as the situation after Good Olfactory's revert violate the applicable guideline. Anyone disagreeing with that needs to show that there are reasons to ignore WP:V in this case.

I added category:Cities in Eurasia because it make senses. If someone thinks otherwise, that is fine, too. My interest here is solely in solving what I deem a failure to apply WP:CAT. Any impact the outcome may have elsewhere can be discussed after consensus has been established about categorization of this category. Paradoctor (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Reasons have been provided and it has been explained, here. The fact that you might disagree with the reasons do not negative the fact that the reasons have had the consensus of editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The only point raised there that is relevant here is the "no consensus" argument, which you have restated for the second time here above, to which I already gave the appropriate counterargument, which I will gladly restate here: WP:CONLIMITED. Disregarding the relevant policies and guidelines will not help convincing me, or anyone, that this categery should be under Europe or Asia. Paradoctor (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the only point raised there. Reasons are given as to why it's set up the way it is. If you're having trouble finding them, they start in the very first comment made by Obiwankenobi, the very first comment by postdlf, and continue throughout afterwards. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi's comment is not relevant here, it concerns somethings else. (And I have addressed there, and that was not contradicted.)

The same holds for postdlf's comment, it's also not relevant here.

Nobody has shown how the violation of WP:V demonstrated above is compatible with the guideline. That is what is missing here. I cited and quoted the applicable guideline and policy, so where are the replies to that? Paradoctor (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's contained in the section linked to above; I realize you don't like the answer and regard it as irrelevant, but there you go. There's a fundamental disagreement on that point, because I believe that it answers the issue very well. It's OK to disagree; I can understand your point, but I disagree that it presents a major problem or one that needs to be remedied. I hope you can see the other side as well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep claiming ("I think it's contained") that there are points invalidating my arguments, but do not come up with evidence. Would you please assume that I made an honest attempt to find what you refer to, but can't find it? You surely don't expect me to prove a negative?

In that context I would like to remind you that I removed the categories because they conflict with WP:V, and that the WP:BURDEN of proof that they don't is on you. Paradoctor (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've become convinced via this discussion that you either don't want to find the reasons, or that you just fundamentally disagree with them. I'm guessing it's primarily the latter, but I do also see some signs that you refuse to even acknowledge them as legitimate reasons. So for the time being I'm stepping out of this discussion. In my view, consensus has been and is clear on the way the category system is structured in a "flexible, good, but not prefect" manner that best aids reader navigation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Listed at WP:3O. Paradoctor (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"The intent should be clear from my initial post." No, it's not, which is why I asked about your intent. And repeating your opinion doesn't get you anywhere if you just brush off questions from others and dismiss their explanations of their contrary arguments as "not relevant" without explanation. We're here after you didn't like what half a dozen other editors told you at WT:CAT, and yet nevertheless proceeded with some kind of test edit to this category with potentially broad consequences that you have not addressed. If you're here to be constructive, then discuss and explain yourself. Don't just insist.

So are you wanting to combine all the contents of Category:Cities in Asia and Category:Cities in Europe so as to replace them both with Category:Cities in Eurasia? Or is it just to move the cities categories there for the countries that straddle both Europe and Asia (not only Russia, but also Georgia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, etc.)? Or just Russia for some reason? Or have you just not yet thought about how your desired edit fits in the category structure as a whole? postdlf (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I neither suggested any of these, nor would this be the place to discuss them.

Per your request, a slightly condensed version of my initial post: My intent is to remove category:Cities in Asia and category:Cities in Europe from this category, because they violate WP:SUBCAT, and result in putting all members of this category into categories into which they don't belong, in violation of WP:V via WP:CAT. In short, I want to ensure that this category complies with WP:CAT, which it does not right now. Paradoctor (talk) 02:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is to say you haven't yet thought about how the edit to this category fits into the category structure as a whole. Yet that's exactly the consideration that such an edit needs when it has broader consequences on the structure it fits into, and the consideration that we've been asking you to take. I'm going to oppose it on that ground alone, in the absence of anyone else thinking there's a problem here, not to mention the fact that your opinion of how V and CAT apply here has already been rejected by a lengthy, well-populated discussion at WT:CAT that involved editors with a lot of experience, much of it in categories. And I have not yet seen a substantive rebuttal from you, just what we would call at AFD a WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"on that ground alone" Which means you're reject correcting this miscategorization because you think the same mistake has been made elsewhere.

"rejected by a lengthy, well-populated discussion" That's bull, the points raised here have not been addressed there, with the exception of the consensus argument, which I have refuted.

Since I'm not getting adequate cooperation in resolving this matter, we take now the next step. Paradoctor (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Delisted at WP:3O, more than two editors involved.
Listed at WP:DRN
Closed due to non-participation
Listed at WP:EA/R
EA/R failed