Talk:Raion

Raion as an administrative division of the big city

Should we add the info about raion as an administrative division of the big city. Currently, only a division of oblast part is covered. Big cities both in Ru and UA are divided into Raions. I think this belongs to this article too. It may be a different thing but clearly the same etymology. Objections? --Irpen July 6, 2005 20:04 (UTC)

In the case of cities, "raion" is commonly and unabmiguously traslated as "district", and IMO it is only reasonable to mention this as the Russian language usage case. mikka (t) 6 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

I see your point. However, please look at the district article. Wouldn't raion as a subdivision of oblast fit there too? --Irpen July 6, 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Yes, it will. And AFAIK, in wikipedia "raions" are often called districts. "Raion" and "oblast" terms were introduced early in wikipedia, when it was no clear policy as to naming of subnational entities. It makes sense to have articles for national terms for subnat entities, which can explain peculiarities of the subdivisions and their hierarchy. I don't feel that raion as a city district must be described here. If you have enough information about them, it will be better in the Cities and towns in Russia, which may explain their administrative structures (which is not done in "City" and "Town", btw) and also explain that in Russia city/town distinction is...er... what is it, by the way? mikka (t) 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

While true that it's usually translated as "district", I don't follow why you mention only for Russian language. For example, when talking about the Kharkivskyi raion in Kiev, in Ukrainain, we'd include the world "raion". Of course, the other time, we'd just say "Kharkivksyi massyv". -- mno July 7, 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Yep. Feel free; you may even throw the Belaryussian "раён" in. mikka (t) 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

Well, this issue is obvious. Less obvious, to me at least, is why following Mikka's logic the (city raion=district period) we should still have an article for raion as an oblast division. The district article covers all kinds of districts in all kinds of languages and adding an RU/UA/BE chapter would do that too. By this logic, oblast should also redirect to province. I simply don't know what would be best to do. For now, I would write a brief mention about city raions in this article but I first put up this request for opinions. Thanks anyway! --Irpen July 7, 2005 01:31 (UTC)

It is not any kind of special logic. I simply explained why the article exists. I have nothing against moving the content into the "district", into the big crowd of the likes. If it is merhed, then "city raion" goes there as well, if not, then "city raion" must be somewhere else as well. mikka (t) 7 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

As a continuation of this talk and regarding recent deletions of my addition: The word "raion" has no strong usage in English, and this somehow must be clearly said in the intro. If you don't like my wording, change it; if you cannot, it stays.

In my understanding, the article with this title exists for the sole purpose to cover peculiarities of the notion of this kind of "district", i.e., it is a neat replacement of a title, kind of Districts in Russia and former Soviet Union. mikka (t) 17:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Okrug = Raion?

I've been reading articles on Moscow (and Russia in general) lately, and I've gotten confused (kinda) by the terms 'Okrug' and 'Raion'. Do these mean the same thing, or are there other more subtle differences which I cannot preceive? 130.225.54.2 02:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there! I believe your confusion is in part due to the word "okrug" being used in many different senses in the Russian language. I'll try to explain.

The word "raion" usually means one of two things—"экономический район" or "район" proper. The former, translated as economic region, is used in economics and statistics, and the latter, translated as "district" or used directly as raion, is what the federal subjects of Russia are divided into.

The word "okrug" is more tricky. An okrug in the administrative sense, from top level down, can be a federal district (федеральный округ), an autonomous district (which are also sometimes called "autonomous okrugs" in English), a rural okrug (сельский округ), a rural territorial okrug (сельский территориальный округ), a stanitsa okrug (станичный округ), a territorial okrug (территориальный округ). The last four (and I probably forgot some) are just different names used for selsoviets in various federal subjects of Russia. In Moscow, there are also administrative okrugs (административный округ), which are roughly equivalent to the raions of "normal" federal subjects (Moscow is not "normal" as it is a federal city with a special status, as is St. Petersburg). The bottom line—the hierarchy of administrative structure in Russia is as follows: federal districts (okrugs)→federal subjects→raions→selsoviets. Both raions and selsoviets may have different names in different federal subjects (often utilizing the word "okrug"), but they all have virtually the same status. I believe if you study the articles in the order I just gave, it should clear a lot of confusion. Hope this helps. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 13:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your timely and thorough explanation - it has cleared up the doubts and questions I had about the topic at hand! 130.225.54.2 15:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

voblasts'

So in Oblast. If someone has arguments for vobłaść - be welcome. Xx236 10:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

I suggest to use district instead of raion. In Russian, Ukrainian or other languages maybe is used the word raion, but in English is district. Is not the purpose of Wikipedia to enrich the English language.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MariusM (talk • contribs) .

Actually, we already use "district" to refer to the raions (to see what I mean, check, for example, the list in administrative divisions of Adygea). This main article, however, is titled "raion" because the term is widely used in narrowly specialized English academic works about this subject; it's not like we are just using a meaningless direct transliteration. The word also has an entry in Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary. I don't have it on hand at this moment (Meriam-Webster website merely states this entry exists, that's how I know), but I'll check when I come back home later today.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I checked my unabridged Merriam-Webster, and "raion" is indeed listed there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose to keep the article about "raion", but to use "district" for other Wikipedia pages. This Wikipedia is for ordinary English-language people, we should not force them to check the article "raion" in order to understand an other article.--MariusM 20:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly how it's done with Russian raions (see this for an example). You might want, however, to raise this point with Ukrainian editors, who do it differently. Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board is a good place to start raising awareness about ordinary English-language people being discriminated in their own Wikipedia :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

Does the word raion have any etymological connection with the word region? Dr. Dan 13:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem so. Merriam-Webster indicates that the word comes from French rayon, which in turn comes from Old French ree or raie, meaning "honeycomb". The Old French word is akin to Old High German rāza, also meaning "honeycomb", and to Middle Dutch rāte. The word "region", on the other hand, is etymologically connected to Middle English regioun, which comes from Middle French region and Latin regio ("direction"). Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, and it does help. Anybody else? Dr. Dan 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland

That country used to have (still has?) "rayons". 118.90.121.65 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Whether you mean cantons or communes, those are never called "raions". Not in English, anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation

For these:

• Category:Districts of Belarus
• Category:Districts of Sofia
• Category:Districts of Latvia
• Category:Districts of Moldova
• Category:Districts of Russia by federal subject

the term "raion" is translated. Why not for Ukraine:

• Category:Raions of Ukraine

? I think this should be in English for Ukraine too. Please advise how that can be done! Aleksandr Krymsky (talk) 04:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Raise a discussion about renaimg the category, by following the procedure dosumented at WP:Categories for discussion.  An optimist on the run! 07:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Aleksandr Krymsky (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Aleksandr Krymsky - you might be interested in Category talk:Districts of Belarus. Derianus (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved, but without prejudice against future requests. As Ëzhiki says, there's "so many things wrong with this request." First of all, Kalinkavichy is a completely separate question from Raion/Rajon and should thus be discussed separately. And there doesn't seem to be a good reason to include only Brahin Raion with the main request. If the community comes to a decision that Rajon is the preferred spelling, we can update other titles that use Raion accordingly.

In conclusion, these three moves should be covered in two discussions. No action will be taken here. --BDD (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

• Raion → Rajon
• Kalinkavichy → Kalinkavičy
• Brahin Raion → Brahin Rajon

– Raion is incorrect transliteration from Russian район, correct to write rajon — please see Romanization of Russian#Transliteration table. Thanks. Telman Masliukou (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment: See below for the rationales given User:Telman Masliukou for these changes. I take no position, this is the procedural step of opening up a formal move request when a technical move is declined. If this move finds consensus, then it would be reasonable to also move the articles on several Belarus districts (raions) named in the original proposal at WP:RMTR. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Raion → Rajon – Raion is incorrect transliteration from Russian район, correct to write rajon — please see Romanization of Russian#Transliteration table. Thanks. Telman Masliukou (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Kalinkavichy → Kalinkavičy – According to the Instruction on Latin Transliteration of Geographical Names of the Republic of Belarus, Decree of the State Committee on Land Resources, Surveying and Cartography of the Republic of Belarus dated 23.11.2000 No. 15 recommended for use by the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) — http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_be.htm. Thanks. Telman Masliukou (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • At 14:06, 27 December 2012‎ BlameRuiner moved page Kalinkavičy to Kalinkavichy over redirect: move from lacinka to normal spelling, so this may be controversial. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a page not found (404) error on the link given in the reason for move above, but see Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you. I've updated the link: http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_be.htm. --Telman Masliukou (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). Wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's get this right. What does the naming convention say about this?
    • Move log
      • 23:44, 10 August 2010 Frank Bongers moved page Kalinkavichy to Kalinkavičy over redirect
      • 10:22, 15 June 2006 Kuban kazak moved page Kalinkavičy to Kalinkavichy over redirect (per WP:CYR)
      • 14:18, 9 October 2005 Monk moved page Kalinkavichy to Kalinkavičy (name fix move)

—Wbm1058 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• • WP:BELARUSIANNAMES has it clear: 1. The BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) is to be used. BlameRuiner (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I also want to mention that the common wikipedia practice is to use the name most commonly used elsewhere. Homieĺ Voblasć and such are surely aren't the most common names. This is English wiki, not Belarusian Latin wiki. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• The following are all contested because: Rajon is a disambiguation; Wikipedia uses Raion. See Raion#Belarus. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • • Raion is incorrect transliteration from Russian район, correct to write rajon, айо=ajo — please see Romanization of Russian#Transliteration table. In Belarus the use writing rajon, Belarusian: раён, аё=ajo — please see Romanization of Belarusian.--Telman Masliukou (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Belarussian seems to spell this word as "раён". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It could be that the spelling "raion" became the usual form to distinguish because rayon is a sort of polymer thread. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Brahin Raion → Brahin Rajon – According to the Instruction on Latin Transliteration of Geographical Names of the Republic of Belarus, Decree of the State Committee on Land Resources, Surveying and Cartography of the Republic of Belarus dated 23.11.2000 No. 15 recommended for use by the Working Group on Romanization Systems of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names (UNGEGN) — http://www.eki.ee/wgrs/rom1_be.htm. Thanks. Telman Masliukou (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. So many things wrong with this request, it's hard to pinpoint where to start. I'll keep it short for now. The whole request seems to be built on the false premise that the title of this article ("raion") is a transliteration. It is not. "Raion" is a loanword in English—not a common one, mind, but still—and one which any good dictionary of English would spell precisely this way (see the OED, for example, or Merriam-Webster). As a loanword, it may also be spelled "rayon". Both "raion" and "rayon" (as well as "rajon") are also transliterations, of course; however, neither one is more "correct" than the other, as the nominator seems to be claiming (without showing any proof at that). They are simply renderings in different romanization systems. The bottom line, however, is that for established loanwords a dictionary spelling is preferred over a transliteration.
  As for Kalinkavičy, that really should be a separate nomination. No good will come out of bundling it with a completely different move request.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 7, 2013; 13:30 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

National republics of the Soviet Union

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What are "National republics of the Soviet Union" mentioned in the article [1]? User:Ezhiki seems to have some knowledge of Soviet Union territorial entities. Derianus (talk) 00:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Since no editor says what "National republics of the Soviet Union" are and where they had raions, and why that would not simply be listed as raions of the Soviet Union, I removed "National republics of the Soviet Union". No citation was given, nor could I find another article that gives details. Derianus (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Ezhiki mever edits during weekends. National republics are Soviet Socialist Republics, they were all divided into raions without an exception.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source for the second claim? Also for the third? Derianus (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Any yearly handbook on the administrative division of the Soviet Union.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The one I have from 1987, for example, does not show any exceptions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2014; 12:06 (UTC)

@User:Ezhiki, User:Ymblanter - Could you provide a scan where it says "National republics are Soviet Socialist Republic"? Otherwise I think you invented it. Derianus (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

AGF.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2014; 02:45 (UTC)

AGF does not apply to dubious information in articles. Ymblanter at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine already made up a story about me, which I know is false. And he still goes on sticking to it, without showing diffs. You can even stick AGF on vandal edits - but that shows more about your usage of the acronym than about the edits and their worth to WP. Derianus (talk) 04:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Google just returned: No results found for "National republics are Soviet Socialist Republics". Derianus (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Google also returned No results found for "National republics are not Soviet Socialist Republics. Oh noes, what are we gonna do now???!!!</sarcasm>

But seriously, if this is the level of research you are planning to bring to the table, I'm rather disappointed with you. If I ever get a chance to see you in person, remind me to go to a grocery store, buy a frozen trout, and slap you with it, just so next time you make a little more effort when researching anything. It is all kind of sad, really, because the answer you seek is indeed one simple google search away.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 31, 2014; 13:50 (UTC)

And now you are promoting physical violence against Wikipedia editors? Derianus (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Table removed by two editors

• 2014-10-25 User:Ymblanter "unexplained removal of content" and
• 2014-10-27 User:Iryna Harpy with the personal attack : "No explanation for removal. WP:TE by contributor who does not wish to follow WP:CONSENSUS."

each removed the table [2], re-introducing content duplication, e.g. Transnistria is listed twice. Both editores don't appear in the edit history of the article. Derianus (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You were asked by both of us to seek consensus before you start changing naming conventions encompassing all nation-states using the term 'raion' (or some variant of the form). Do you remember the WP:BRD information I provided for you, or did you not bother to read any of it before deleting it from your talk page as you've done with other comments left by Ymblanter and myself. Even the section headers you've been using on talk pages contravene WP:TALK guidelines: i.e., no personal attacks, yet you have in engaged in little other than decrying everyone who stands in your way as attacking and harassing you. Please stop playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and try to engage civilly in discussion.

Incidentally, the reversions are legitimate when you are single-handedly moving and changing nomenclature and articles themselves. The nomenclature was adopted for a reason, and stands as being the consensus version until such a time as consensus for a change has been reached. That is how bold → revert → discuss is defined. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

1. "You were asked by both of us to seek consensus before you start changing naming conventions" - Wrong venue? I didn't rename anything in the article Raion. Stop spreading lies.
2. "you have in engaged in little other than decrying everyone who stands in your way as attacking and harassing you." - my claims of harassment started since you started with exactly doing that. Look, that before I talked with others and it was fine. You are the person starting personal attacks. You never edited "raion" before. You are stalking other users. Derianus (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not have to justify having had this article on my watchlist for a long, long time. Go to the actual article and, in the left-hand menus, you will find a link for "What links here". Select 'Article' in the 'Namespace' pull-down menu. Click on the link and you will find literally thousand of links. You are single-handedly changing all of the conventions to 'District' without having discussed and found consensus for changing the nomenclature for all areas involved. You have imposed your own transliteration of 'rayon' as acceptable despite the fact that this has been discussed in relation to Belarus before and no one wanted to use that form because it is too reminiscent of the synthetic fabric fibre. Would you please slow down on your unilateral changes and accusations levelled against other users who actually know the history of disputes surrounding this issue. Read through the talk page archives. Try to WP:LISTEN. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You are a new editor and are doing yourself no favours by assuming WP:BADFAITH and machine-gunning user talk pages (i.e., mine!!!) with Twinkle warning templates when you've barely got a grasp of policies and guidelines. I haven't even started on WP:TALKNEW where you have used new section header to specifically to attack other editors.

While I recognise that you have good ideas about tidying up administrative regions, etc. and did assume good faith as to your intentions (once you'd finally been forced into entering into discussions on talk pages in following WP:BRD), you seem to have painted yourself into a corner in believing that you're being hounded by POV monsters where they don't exist. At this rate, you're going to dig yourself into a hole and bury yourself. Bearing in mind that I believe (and know that other editors also see this) that you are potentially a good and constructive editor, could we please make an attempt to start afresh without your feeling that you're in a shoot-out and everyone is against you? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You are single-handedly changing all of the conventions to 'District' - where did you see this??? Again an invention, like Ymblanter did invent something similar at Talk:Oblasts of Ukraine? Derianus (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Iryna Harpy - you don't reply. Does it mean you have no evidence for your claim? You just spread false claims about other users? Shame on you. Derianus (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rayon as an Indonesian term

Indonesia uses the word rayon. I am not sure if this belongs here where the entry is raion, but the Indonesian word rayon is absorbed from the Dutch and means both district and the thread type. As a synonym for district, the word rayon is often found in military and governmental circles. E.g., komando rayon militer, rayon Kodya Surakarta, etc. Should Indonesia be added in the list, with perhaps a note for the spelling differences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.212.247 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it should be mentioned depends on whether in the context of Indonesia the term is also used in English. If it is, it absolutely should be mentioned (preferably with an accompanying reference). It it is not, then it shouldn't be (look at it this way—not all terms in local languages are used in English, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary). Regardless, this is an interesting piece of trivia—I had no idea! Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 22, 2016; 13:51 (UTC)