Talk:Urban okrug

Definition
Федеральный закон от 06.10.2003 N 131-ФЗ (ред. от 05.10.2015) городской округ - городское поселение, которое не входит в состав муниципального района и органы местного самоуправления которого осуществляют полномочия по решению установленных настоящим Федеральным законом вопросов местного значения поселения и вопросов местного значения муниципального района, а также могут осуществлять отдельные государственные полномочия, передаваемые органам местного самоуправления федеральными законами и законами субъектов Российской Федерации;

If you know any other legal definitions, you are welcome to disambiguate. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But of course I know other legal definitions; why do you think I created this page to begin with?! :) Here's a couple examples:
 * "административно-территориальная единица [Республики Алтай] —городской округ, муниципальный район (аймак)..."
 * "Административно-территориальными единицами [Воронежской области] являются муниципальный район, городской округ..."
 * Apart from this not being an exhaustive list, there are also administrative divisions which include "urban okrug" as a part of the term referring to an administrative division; the full list of all terms can be found on the city of federal subject significance page, which was another target linked from this disambiguation before you changed it to a redirect.
 * Convinced yet? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 5, 2015 ; 16:43 (UTC)
 * Nope. You didn'd give any different definitions, only usage. The article in Russian wikipedia is interlinked: ru:Городской округ в России. No traces of disambiguation either (I do know that wikipedia is not a valid ref in wikipedia :-), but I noticed that ru:wikipedia has much more info about Russian issues (although much less referenced)). I suspect you got confused by en-ru false friend "administrative". In en: we may speak of "US administration". in ru: административны refers to local self-govt (with the exception of slavish influence of american slang). For your example of [Воронежской области], -- "Борисоглебский городской округ — муниципальное образование в составе Воронежской области России, наделенный Законом Воронежской области от 15 октября 2004 года № 63-ОЗ «Об установлении границ, наделении соответствующим статусом, определении административных центров отдельных муниципальных образований Воронежской области» статусом городского округа". - üser:Altenmann >t 16:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, inside various subjects of federal division of Russia the concept of "urban okrug" may have peculiarities, but these do not amount to "disambiguable" differences. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't believe you fully understand the distinction yourself? Ru-wiki is horrible in this regard, by the way—most people there do not understand the difference between administrative and municipal aspects either. That's how they end up with gems like "Пригородный район — административно-территориальная единица в Свердловской области, существовавшая в 1965 — 2006 годах", even as this district has never been abolished and is still listed in the Registry of Administrative-Territorial Units adopted as recently as January 2015. What was really abolished in 2006 is Prigorodny Municipal District (or, to be exact, "Prigorodny District Municipal Formation").
 * Anyway, the sources I gave are the laws on the administrative division; the source you gave is the (federal) law on the municipal divisions. Both administrative and municipal structures are established on the level of federal subjects, but the municipal structures must follow the rules and terminology set forth in the federal law. There is no similar federal law for the administrative (administrative-territorial) structures; those are passed on the federal subject level as well. This is why all federal subjects use exact same terminology to refer to municipal divisions (municipal districts, urban okrugs...) yet the terminology used to refer to administrative (administrative-territorial) divisions varies wildly from one federal subject to another. As you can imagine, this disparity can be extremely confusing to uninitiated :) Some federal subjects (like Amur Oblast) explicitly declare that their administrative-territorial structure simply mirrors the municipal structure and re-use the municipal terminology, but that still does not mean that their urban okrugs which are administrative units are the same thing as their urban okrugs which are municipal units. It's not just a matter of "usage", the difference is fundamental. To borrow your example, Borisoglebsky Urban Okrug is a municipal division, yes, as this law→ would confirm, but there is also an administrative division of the same name (and on the same territory), which is not the same thing; see this law→ ("административно-территориальная единица Воронежской области... - часть территории Воронежской области в фиксированных границах, совпадающих с границами муниципального образования"; the Appendix then lists Borisoglebsky Urban Okrug as an administrative division). The Rostov Oblast's Law on Administrative-Territorial Structure defines urban okrugs as administrative-territorial divisions ("административно-территориальное образование &mdash; городской округ или муниципальный район..." ) and also lists them in the Registry of Administrative-Territorial Divisions. Is this making sense to you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 6, 2015 ; 16:59 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am aware that ru:Территориальное деление России is a clusterfuck. ALso, I myself fixed the article Municipal divisions of Russia with the phrase about the duplication. Genosse Igel, I am surprized that you do not operate with WP:RS which explicitly define WTH 'UO' is. In particular, your phrase "explicitly declare that their administrative-territorial structure simply mirrors the municipal structure" says exactly what I say: UO is a territorial unit within which two parallel structures exist. And this is what the redirect I chose says. If you want a disambig page, you are welcome to write an article Administrative division of Russia, because City of federal subject significance as a disambig option only increases the confusion. And it will also prevent such ugly constructions as " A republican urban okrug (республиканский городской округ) is " - üser:Altenmann >t 23:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Treating the administrative and municipal divisions as "territorial units within which two parallel structures exist" is exactly the problem I'm trying to address here. An urban okrug (as a municipal division) is not a "territorial unit" (that is, not from the legal point of view; once you delve into colloquialisms and simplifications, then of course anything is possible). Territorial units (as legally defined entities) are a part of the administrative-territorial framework, and municipal divisions are outside that framework. It is the frameworks which are (often, but not always) parallel, not the units that compose them. Furthermore, mirroring the municipal structure is not the same as being identical to it. In the federal subjects I covered in my previous comments, changes to the municipal units would result in changes to the administrative (administrative-territorial) units, but those changes are not automatic. Even when the laws require the administrative and municipal units to exist within the same borders, the administrative changes which follow the municipal changes would still be stipulated separately. Also, in most other federal subjects, changes to municipal units would have absolutely no effect on the administrative (administrative-territorial) units; Sverdlovsk Oblast is the best illustration of that fact (it is composed of thirty administrative districts and twenty-nine cities on the administrative-territorial side, but of five municipal districts and sixty-eight urban okrugs on the municipal side).
 * When you added this, I assume you were basing it on the following sentence: "...органы местного самоуправления действуют в границах определенных территориальных единиц, составляющих территориальные основы местного самоуправления..." in Chapter 12, is that right? If so, I'm surprised that you did not recognize that the usage of "certain territorial units" here is simply an explanatory sentence using generic, simplified terms (this is a textbook, after all); it is not based on the actual municipal law definitions (Law #131-FZ, the basis of the whole municipal framework in Russia, does not mention "territorial units" even once). The municipal units are of course "territorial" in a sense they exist within a certain delimited territory, but they are definitely not "territorial" in a sense the laws on administrative-territorial division define them. The authors do understand that, too, as in the same chapter they correctly point out that "Конституция РФ не связывает напрямую территориальную организацию местного самоуправления с административно-территориальным устройством..." And even though "...[Конституция] не исключает возможности такого решения вопроса территориальной основы местного самоуправления", that brings us back to the few cases where the municipal structures mirror the administrative-territorial ones&mdash;even though they are mirrored, they are still treated as separate, with nothing preventing the regional government from decoupling them if they decide it to be necessary/useful in the future.
 * As for me not "operat[ing] with WP:RS which explicitly define WTH 'UO' is", WTH do you think I gave all those references to the applicable laws for? They all explicitly state that an "urban okrug" is an administrative-territorial unit, and since we established that the administrative-territorial units are not the same as the municipal units, why keep insisting that the term redirects to the article dealing with the municipal divisions instead of disambiguating between the municipal and administrative aspects? I'm even more puzzled about your problem with linking to city of federal subject significance to explain Adygea's "republican urban okrugs". Where else would you link it to when explaining the administrative-territorial structure of that republic? And if it were a "city of republic significance" and not a "republican urban okrug", would you still link it elsewhere?
 * As for the administrative divisions of Russia article, we do, of course, need to have one eventually. Writing it, however, is not as simple as slapping together a stub like this. The administrative division structures are different in each federal subject; that is precisely the reason why city of federal subject significance contains such a long list, why the lists in the articles on lower-level administrative divisions are even longer, and why writing an overview article is a major undertaking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 9, 2015 ; 17:12 (UTC)

May be you are right. It seems I followed a possibly wrong assumptions that Russians in ru wikipedia know things Russian better. As for your being puzzled about Adygea urban okrugs, I suggest you to move a considerable piece from city of federal subject significance to Administrative divisions of Russia. Then all this mess will have a little more sense: Russia is divided into Federal Subjects. Each FedSubj further subdivides itself however it sees fit. In addition, each FedSubj can have municipal formations, but the latter should be only of unified particular types. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Now I understand why corruption in Russia is incorruptible: with all these reforms the number of bureaucrats tripled compared with the USSR. (Although one has to correct for removal of CPSU apparatus; although I have no idea about bribery flow between "partrabotniki" and "upravlentsy". :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 05:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I appreciate your input (you probably have no idea just how much). But federal subjects are not a part of the administrative divisions framework :) They are constitutional entities, not unlike the US states (and by "not unlike" I mean, of course, strictly the theoretical foundation, not the practical implementation). That said, the material from city of federal subject significance definitely would belong in a dedicated article about the administrative divisions, as would the material from the articles about administrative districts, towns of district significance, urban-type settlements of districts significance, and selsoviets.
 * P.S. I'm not the best person to comment on corruption in Russia (I haven't set foot there in fifteen years), but from what I hear from people who stayed there, you are absolutely right. And the CPSU apparatus may be gone, but the Yedross apparatus is more than an adequate replacement :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2015 ; 14:06 (UTC)
 * re: "not part of" - that's what I implied, didn't I? - üser:Altenmann >t 16:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, of course. I must have misunderstood the implication.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 10, 2015 ; 16:58 (UTC)