User talk:Ezhiki

File:Crystal 128 package utilities.png	Toolbox	Autoblock finder Countitis facilitatis (defunct) Edit summary usage stats Image usage (defunct) List of blocked IPs & usernames Prefix Index Link Search Unwatched pages	Yo? Yo!
	Reference	Administrators' how-to guide Administrators' reading list Current surveys Dealing with vandalism Manual of style Policies and guidelines Vandalism in progress

Please note that I am usually not around during weekends and holidays. If you leave me a message any time after Friday afternoon U.S. Central Time, there is a good chance it will not be read and answered until Monday morning. I am sorry for any inconvenience this might cause.

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007

Russian republic infoboxes

Re this revert: you're only half right; the layout actually depends on screen resolution. Namely, we have (fixed) image pixel size, and (scalable) texts. When you have relatively big resolution (like my 1280x1024, which comes down to cca. 1000x1024 with browser sidebar visible), the map remains proportionally small, but the long texts enwide the infobox. With the current version, I see the infobox occupying around 60% of available horizontal article space; with "my" version, it comes down to below 40%. I can post screenshots if you like. In any case, I think that the infobox design should be improved. Duja► 08:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (please reply here).[reply]

Hi, Duja! Thanks for your feedback. The effect you are describing is quite curious; I've never seen anything of the sort even though I work with odd-sized browser windows all the time. Whatever resolution I use, all infobox text simply wraps to the next line without causing problems, never expanding the infobox past slightly over 300px (map width+borders and margins).

Anyway, if you could post a few screenshots, that'd be most helpful. If you could also tell me which browser you are using and point me to an infobox that looks similar but does not cause you the same kind of problems, it'd make my job fixing the issue easier, too. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got e-mail. Duja► 13:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...P.S. For same reason, the language list doesn't wrap and seems to be the primary culprit. I didn't look at the template code to see if some particular CSS style causes that.Duja► 13:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...P.P.S. In Firefox only; IE does wrap. Duja► 13:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll take a look later today. I don't use Firefox, though (I usually assume that if the template has no problems in Opera and IE, it should be handled properly by Firefox, but the latter seems to always have some silly problem I did not expect). Thanks again for the heads up!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of investigation, you turned out to be right—the problem is endemic to Firefox and is related to the CSS. The {{Infobox Russian federal subject}} utilizes "infobox geography vcard" class, which seems to be causing problems in Firefox. You would experience a no-wrap problem with any template using this class (see, for example, Kalat District or Riau).

Considering all this, going around and trimming the text in the infoboxes to make them narrower is not a solution. I would suggest you bring it up with folks responsible for maintaining the classes, as I am not nearly as good with CSS to have this problem fixed myself. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After I did that research, I realized it was a browser and/or CSS problem rather than infobox one. Thanks for the investigation. I'll go to appropriate venues (um, which? Bugzilla? WP:VPT?) Duja► 13:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't know, sorry. Bugzilla is a possibility. If you ask around the wikiprojects relying on infoboxes with "infobox geography" class, I'm sure someone will be able to point you to the right place. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About alleborgobot interwiki error

The problema has been fixed, thanks. --Alleborgo 09:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Melnikovo, Leningrad Oblast - interwiki

Привет, насколько я понимаю, правильнее все-таки:
ru:Мельниковское сельское поселение<------>fi:Räisälä (бывшая финская волость, бывш. волость)
ru:Мельниково (Ленинградская область)<------>en:Melnikovo, Leningrad Oblast (поселок, центр бывшей волости) --MaryannaNesina 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Изначально это бот (см. секцией выше) сглючил. Хозяин бота обещал всё починить. Я просто вернул как всё было. Насчёт финской статьи ничего не могу сказать, поскольку по-фински не говорю. Если я чего-то неправильно откатил, то спасибо, что починили.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the fi-interwiki, it is not due to a bot. It has been included by me and I believe it is appropriate there. The articles are supposed to include information about the historic municipalities (parishes). We are not obliged to have one-to-one correspondence between articles in different Wikipedias. I think it would be unreasonable and not very reader-friendly to have two articles for each case. In some wikis some articles are more generic. E.g. fr:Paolo Taviani + fr:Vittorio Taviani => en:Paolo and Vittorio Taviani. Maryanna, please, don't delete these interwikis. Colchicum 09:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was that there were two articles in fi_wiki: one for the settlement and the other for the municipality. Since, according to Colchicum, it's not the case, then, of course, linking the settlement article in en_wiki with the municipality in fi_wiki makes all the sense as it is a very close match. If/when additional articles are written, the interwikies can be reviewed at that time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Белостокская область

Could you find anything about this entity? According to pl:Obwód białostocki (Rosja) it was a guberniya but called district, created in 1807 after the Treaties of Tilsit and in 1842 merged to Grodno Governorate. I am particulary confused about the 'region not gubernya' part.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 10:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one I can help you with. "Obwód białostocki" refers to "Belostok Oblast" (Белостокская область). In the 19th century, some of the oblasts were administrative divisions which had a status roughly equal to that of the guberniyas; i.e., they existed independently from the guberniyas, not as their parts as it used to be the case in the 18th century. The "region not guberniya" part most likely refers to the fact that Belostok Oblast was an oblast ("region"), not a governorate. Belostok Oblast was abolished in 1843 when it was included into Grodno Governorate. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite, I created Belostok Oblast based on pl wiki article and your information. Btw, another interesting entity: Chełm Governorate (especially motives for creation, ironic that WWI was much worse then this contingency plan foresaw). Question: would Governorate-General be the same as Governorate? Chełm Governorate was a governorate but it was also attached to Kiev General-Governorate, but I can only find info about Kiev Governorate...? Finally, I found a template on pl wiki listing governorates that got former Polish-Lithuanian lands attached to it (pl:Szablon:Zabory 1772-1807), unfortunatly all are red. Sigh :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, a governorate is not the same as the governorate-general. A governorate-general would comprise several governorates and would have one Governor-General overseeing the Governors (not unlike modern presidential envoys oversee the governors and presidents of federal subjects :)). As for Chełm Governorate, I don't have anything specifically on it; sorry. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaz

That was originally a messy copy & paste job of moving the article. See the page history of Kazimieras G. Prapuolenis and Kaz. It was originally moved as copy & paste job. I fixed that, but the downside is that the original edits of the disambig are in a mess. I deleted Kaz and recreated with a specific reference to where I got the edits from. That should solve it I think. Garion96 (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is possible to collect all edits onto one page and then re-distribute them properly, separating the history of the dab page from the history of the article itself. Let me know if you can't do that; I'll tackle it later myself. Thanks for the prompt reply! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew that, will check out how. Try something new. :) But I also think it's not really necessary (for GFDL reasons), the way it is done now it is like a split of an article. No special need to split the history for only three edits. Garion96 (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if one isn't aware of previous move/change history, it is rather complicated to figure out what exactly happened. That's the only reason why I even bothered to let you know—it may work for GFDL reasons, but it's still a pain in the backend to sort out. Since it can be fixed relatively easily, I don't see a reason why not do it :) Anyway, let me know if you need help sorting the histories. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine actually what's complicated about it. I just deleted the copy & paste move, did the move myself, and created Kaz a disambig and provided in the edit summary where it came from. I might play with it later to see if I can split the history, just to see how it is done. Or not if you beat me to it. Feel free. :) Garion96 (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to deprive you of this learning opportunity :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caca

I was about to edit the Caca page to specify that it means feces in many languages, but noticed that you keep reverting it every time someone say so. I don't understand why you believe that fact shouldn't be there. -- Lyverbe 13:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a fact. Note, however, that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionary definitions belong to Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia's disambiguation pages. Manual of style for disambiguation pages explicitly states that a Wiktionary link is sufficient and that dictionary definitions should not be included.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I understand now. Thanks. -- Lyverbe 16:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:welcome

Thanks for the welcome. I'll check out those links Justin 8:18 PM 2007

Question: how does everyone get their signatures like that?

Just type ~~~~ (i.e., four tildes), and you'll add your default signature. If you don't like how the default signature looks like, you can always edit it in "my preferences" (located at the top of the screen next to your username and your talk page link). Let me know if you have any other questions. See you around!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Justin levy-smith 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krasnaya Polyana

Hello,

I dubted before editing the article, so I had a look on Google: [1]. There are many sites on the Internet where Красная Поляна is tranlated as Red Glade. And these bad translations led me the wrong way. Now I know a little bit more of Russian. Sorry, and thank you for your explanation. J.M.Domingo 22:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. In general, red is indeed an overwhelmingly more common translation. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template Russian city

The template is clearly disruptive as regards the layout of our articles. Take a look at Gelendzhik, for instance. I believe we should be removing it on sight. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree about Gelendzhik as it was the very first article I tried this template in, so it's there mostly as a result of testing. Feel free to move it to talk (so it could be moved back when the article grows in size). I don't, however, agree that the template should be removed "on sight". Infoboxes are useful in that they provide the most basic reference information about a place at a glance; often information in the infobox meets all the needs a casual reader might have. I don't know if you noticed, but (apart from Gelendzhik) I never add this infobox to articles which already did not have some other similar infobox (often of a much inferior quality) and I would not, of course, purposefully add it to an article so short that an infobox would be much longer than the actual article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina

you edited saying "dab pages are not for listing people by their first names, unless they are exclusively known by first names alone)" though i've seen otherwise: lisa chris luke stacy stacey ana patrick brett george bart roger greg craig robert robin ETC

could you not have given it a separate category instead of deleting my entries? either that or edit all the entries i've listed with "dab pages are not for listing people by their first names, unless they are exclusively known by first names alone)"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soparu (talk • contribs).

As per WP:MOSDAB (namely, this clause), people should not be listed on disambiguation pages by their first and/or last names. You are, however, quite welcome to separate the name entries to Nina (given name). Same goes for all other names in the list you provided above. I only edited Nina because I happen to have it on my watchlist, but I assure you the rest of the names will be eventually sorted out by others in a similar fashion. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions

In the Russian section of this new article, I listed a list of Governorates that held former Commonwealth territory, but since I was translating it from pl wiki I am sure there are simple errors in naming (in red links) - could you look it over at correct the names, where appopriate?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 19:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoga

Ezhiki, I disagree with your disagreement :) The situation is identical with Novgorod. I deliberately kept the redirect, because: a) I have no time for disambiguation each time I print "Ladoga"; b) I prepared a huge article about Staraya Ladoga which, when posted, will make the redirect even more useful. We have Template:Redirect for such cases; there is nothing wrong with using it. The disambiguation contains four items; it will inevitably grow, buring Staraya Ladoga somewhere in the middle of the list. It is often difficult for a layman to understand which settlement is normally referred to as "Ladoga" in the academic discourse. As you know, there is no instruction creep in Wikipedia, so I would prefer to keep both Ladoga and Novgorod as disambiguation pages rather than redirects. They redirect to the orginal meaning of the term, the one which gave rise to all the others (the lake was named after the town). --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I have to disagree with... well, you get the gist :) The thing is, I don't see the situation with Ladoga as identical to the one with Novgorod. Of all the meanings of "Novgorod", the one referring to modern Veliky Novgorod stands out quite prominently. It is still possible to have a dab page directly at "Novgorod", but, as you rightfully implied, it would be the case of silly consistency at the expense of convenience (of both editors and readers). But Ladoga is different. In this case, we have two prominent items struggling for readers' attention. Your motivation for moving/redirecting the dab page was the number of backlinks, and "Staraya Ladoga" currently has about a hundred of them (about half of which come through "Ladoga"). But Lake Ladoga has twice as many! If anything, it would make more sense to redirect "Ladoga" to the article about the lake rather than to "Staraya Ladoga". There is no way to predict whether readers would be more likely to go to one article than another. The situation is not at all unlike that around Kirov, which is a disambiguation page and not a redirect—readers are equally likely to seek information about the city as they are about the man after whom the city was named.

I understand your unwillingness to think of such minute details as piping the links when your mind is focused on the content and the flow of the article you are writing, but I'm afraid when it's not possible to satisfy the convenience of both editors and readers, the convenience of readers takes priority (if I were to seek information about the lake, landing on "Staraya Ladoga" after typing "Ladoga" in the search box would be mildly annoying... as would be the necessity to click away first to the dab page and only then to the destination). Knowing your dislike to mindless repetitive edits, I can offer you a compromise—we'll restore the dab page as it were (following the reasoning above), and I'll straighten the links so they point to "Staraya Ladoga" and not to the disambiguation page for you. That is, of course, unless you have any additional counter-arguments I have not yet addressed. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable solution. If you fix the backlinks, I will take care of piping the links to Ladoga during my future edits. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed then. I'll take care of backlinks and restore the dab page some time on Monday. In future, if you happen to encounter a similar dillema, feel free to let me know. I don't mind doing this kind of maintenance at all. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

Can you add a ton->kg conversion in {{Weight}}--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather make a dedicated template for this. Which ton do you need, by the way, short or long one?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need the ton that equals 2000 lbs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decatur City, Iowa

What do you mean by "it is no longer recognised"?Zigzig20s 18:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]