Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of administrative and municipal divisions of the Republic of Adygea/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by The Rambling Man 16:57, 8 November 2010.

List of administrative and municipal divisions of the Republic of Adygea

 * Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is an old nomination, with serious lack of inline citations. Furthermore, the format used is quite unpleasant. Before keeping its status, significant changes would be necessary. Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Have the significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects been notified? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't been (although I'm of course watching the page, being one of the authors and all). I'd be fully committed to fix whatever problems the nominator thinks this list has, providing he could be more specific.  Last I checked, "unpleasant format" was a personal opinion, not a removal criterion :)  As for "serious lack of inline citations"... ahem...  I've been known to be accused of using too many of them, but "serious lack"?  More specific comments about the proposed/expected "significant changes" would be greatly appreciated.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 14:35 (UTC)


 * I think "unpleasant format" means that the list is hard to read and understand, which fails Criterion 4. The prose is okay, but the tables have problems, especially the one under "Overview of administrative and municipal divisions". I also agree that the list would benefit from more inline citations.— Chris! c / t 18:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. The list was actually a result of a collaboration between me (content-wise) and another editor (who came up with the layout and structure).  We tried multiple approaches, but navigation-wise this one seemed to work the best.  The article covers a fair amount of material, so organizing it efficiently is, of course, a challenge.  Do you have any specific suggestions as to what should be improved?  I'll be happy to do the actual work of tweaking the list, but I need specifics&mdash;vague complaints are hard to act on! :)  Same goes for the citations&mdash;can you point out a few specific sentences?  Are those unreferenced sentences perhaps a part of a bigger, referenced, passage?  Can the unreferenced parts be fixed by simply attaching already existing references?  Could you clarify what exactly seems to be the problem with the "overview..." table?  Colors, layout, placement, something else?  If the article raises questions that impede the understanding of the material, what are those questions?  Those kinds of comments will help me to immediately do something to address the concerns.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 19:20 (UTC)
 * major issues:
 * very short intro
 * it is very unclear why administrative divisions does not include municipal divisions
 * the prose in the history section is very choppy; at least merge the text into fewer paragraphs
 * administrative division structure: it is very hard to follow this format (no idea how it can be improved, but it has to be improved); it is also very low on inline citations
 * the overview table is not clear at all what is it talking about; i.e.: why Maykopsky District has 4 rows, two of which are not labelled/identified at all?
 * the list section can be restructured into a table

Nergaal (talk) 20:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; here are my comments (I hope you don't mind I re-numbered your bullet points for ease of reference):
 * I'll attempt to re-write the intro tomorrow.
 * I'll add some background information as to why it is so; that's a good catch.
 * This section is a basic history background, so we tried keeping it short, leaving only the most important trends and facts. I'll see what I can do tomorrow.
 * The list and the definitions come directly from the republic's law. I can add other sources, but there really isn't going to be anything new those sources will add (plus, the law is current; other sources will be somewhat out-of-date).  If adding the law citation to every single sentence work for you, I'll do it, but comments made around the time the nomination had been submitted leaned to such approach being unnecessary and redundant.  As for the administrative divisions format, it is hard to follow because the system being described is itself rather convoluted (in fact, I am yet to see a more convoluted system than Russia's).  The list presents the concepts hierarchically, from top to bottom.  I don't know of a more straightforward way to present this information.  Hopefully the list isn't going to be delisted just because the concepts themselves are difficult to wrap one's mind around?
 * Maykopsky District's first two rows (in blue) show how the district's urban-type settlements correspond to the municipal urban settlements. The rest of the territory is under the direct jurisdiction of the administrative district; on the municipal side, however, that same territory is divided into eight municipal rural settlements (coded yellow; with 48 rural localities) and the inter-settlement territory (with three rural localities).  See what I meant when I said the system is convoluted? :)  At any rate, the table itself was a later addition made after the FL nomination had passed; I have no qualms about removing it altogether, although I think it could be helpful to people genuinely interested in figuring out how exactly the system works.
 * The list section was restructured from the table format per the comments made during the FL review nomination, during the nomination itself, and the subsequent review. The table, apparently, was too hard to follow.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 30, 2010; 20:53 (UTC)
 * 6. Just take a look at List_of_Digimon_video_games or List of StarCraft media. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a first pass addressing ##1–3 and removed the overview table altogether to address #5. Please let me know if that addresses your concerns and, if not, what else I could do to address them more fully.  I would appreciate more comments regarding #4 (see my remark above).  On #6, I would like to hear from more than one person confirming that the currently used list format is inferior to the table format Nergaal proposed.  Judging from the Digimon/StarCraft examples, those table add nothing beyond a gray background and some separators&mdash;seems to me it's just a matter of taste, not something critical.  It is quite a chore to switch from one format to another, which is why I would appreciate more input regarding the matter.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 31, 2010; 16:16 (UTC)


 * Reply
 * 1) lead looks good
 * 2) while the municipal divisions issue is explained in the lead, this is not presented at all in the article text. more information should be added to the municipal division structure section
 * 3) the history section is better but some work can be still done: I counted 6 short paragraphs formed of 2 sentences each
 * 4) I don't like the one-sentence-per-section style now. It should be merged somehow and to help the reader, a scheme along the lines found at Tyrannosauridae would be much more helpful.
 * 5) removing it is not the best solution. I prefer having it with explanatory notes added
 * 6) taste no; easier to follow (by having colums) yes
 * 7) is there a reason the article is not named List of divisions of Republic of Adygea? Nergaal (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Replies:
 * OK, one down :)
 * Unlike with the administrative divisions, which are different from one federal subject to another, the structure/terminology/qualities of the municipal divisions are described and mandated by a single federal law. The structure of the municipal divisions is thus the same in each and every federal subject of Russia; there's no point in explaining it over and over 83 times (or make corrections in 83 places if the definitions change later).  That's the main reason why the "Municipal divisions" section only gives the briefest of overviews; all the meat can be found at Subdivisions of Russia, which is linked to from the section hat.
 * The paragraph breaks are inserted in all the logical places. If you see a way to consolidate the existing material better, would you please do so?  It wouldn't require the knowledge of the material; you'd be working only with the pieces which are already in there.  Or perhaps you are looking for me to expand the paragraphs which are currently too short?
 * The format of this list will eventually be re-used in the rest of the article on the "administrative and municipal divisions of...". While consolidating a list of districts and cities/towns into one chart similar to the phylogeny example is doable for Adygea, it will not be a feasible option for most of the rest of the federal subjects.  Adygea, with only seven districts, is atypical; federal subjects have anywhere from one to sixty districts (and the federal city of Moscow, which has a very unique administrative structure, has 125), with the median of 22.
 * I don't know a good way to explain that table, and you were right to point out at the beginning that it is confusing to uninitiated. If I (or someone else) think of a better way to summarize that information, I most certainly re-add it later on.  From what I've tried so far, the result is either confusing or extremely cluttered (and thus also confusing).
 * I would still prefer to hear someone else support this; hope you understand. Like I said before, the table format was shot down in the past precisely because someone else didn't like it; that's why everything is textified.  We shouldn't be switching formats back and forth every few years without a clear consensus as to why.
 * Adygea has other kinds of divisions; this article only deals with the administrative and municipal ones. Typically in Russia the administrative and municipal divisions are bundled under the "territorial" moniker (i.e., the title can be "List of the territorial divisions of the Republic of Adygea"), but I don't have a source available to back that up specifically for Adygea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)


 * 2) Not everybody is aware of the distinction, because not everybody is aware of the issues related to divisions of Russia. For a featured content it should stand alone. Just add an introductory sentence to the section.
 * 5) so use the diagrams used in phylogeny sections of species articles. as a featured list it should not contain confusing parts
 * 7) just to clarify: if the article was titled simply divisions of..., what would be missing? Nergaal (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Let me think about it over the weekend and I'll do something next week.
 * 5) Gotta think about this as well. If you have any ideas, could you do a rough draft of how the material should be presented?
 * 7) Divisions of all other types would be implied but missing. Transportation zones, military units, maybe postal zones&mdash;I'm not very well versed in those, but none of them are related to the administrative/municipal divisions at all.  In the end it's probably not that big of a deal, but since the list is an FL, extra care should be exercised to make sure the title is as precise as possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 17, 2010; 20:30 (UTC)


 * Comment What is the status of this nomination? Have the various concerns been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been working on this from the start, but did not have much time to address the remaining concerns in the past couple of weeks. I'm planning to return to the remaining issues in a week or two.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 11, 2010; 18:52 (UTC)
 * As I seem to be the only person reviewing this here are my thoughts: the list itself has much improved over when I nominated it. The only two major problems I can still notice is that "Administrative division structure" is a bit difficult to go through (i.e. is not clear at all) ; and I would strongly prefer having "List of administrative and municipal divisions" in a tabulated form (which the editor would prefer to hear from other people too before doing). Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Any more news on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nergaal? Are you good with closing this?  I don't believe there's anyone else felt with outstanding comments regarding this list's FL status.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2010; 13:17 (UTC)
 * I only have one major concern left (I would prefer the last section being tabulated), but considering how much this has been improved I am fine with keeping it. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment my primary issues resolved, and currently see no consensus for demotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.