Template talk:Infobox Russian city

message: Do we really need this template? --Ghirla -трёп- 07:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  People will be always be trying to add infoboxes to articles on Russian cities, and this template gives them a tool that takes specifics of Russian cities/towns into consideration; something this abomination (example) or this over-generic box (example) fail to do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What did  fail to do? —MJCdetroit 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Infobox Settlement does not provide means for quite a few characheristics which are important to a Russian city (not enough fields for official languages, no auto-generated map for cases when a custom map is unavailable, no city day, no place for administrative/municipal jurisdiction status specific to Russia, no field for charter, legislative body etc.).  Its terminology does not comply with the terminology used for the Russian cities.  Also, in its attempt to be a universal template for all occasions it has so many redundant parameters (for Russian cities, that is), that it became easier to write a Russian-specific template rather than copyedit the existing mess (trust me, I tried, and I had a hell of a time considering that I knew what was incorrect and/or missing).  Most of the folks using Infobox Settlement, even with the best of intentions, could not figure out what applies to Russian cities and what does not apply, resulting in misleading, uninformative, and factually incorrect infoboxes.  Given that infoboxes should contain summary information that's sufficient to fulfill the basic reference needs of casual readers at a glance, utilizing overly-generic infoboxes compromized the whole articles.  That is dangerous and irresponsible, hence a new template which leaves much less room for errors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that it is better to have a uniformed look throughout Wiki and I have replaced many nation-specific city infoboxes with Infobox Settlement.  Mostly because they were terrible like the abomination mentioned above. —MJCdetroit 18:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are only terrible because no one cared to improve them either way (by making a decent nation-specific template or by trying to clean up existing uniform one), aren't they?  If a uniform box works for other places, there surely is no need to try and impose a custom-made one on them.  As far as Russian cities are concerned, however, the generic boxes do not work for them because there are so many specifics peculiar to Russia.  Adding such specifics to what is supposed to be a uniform infobox would defeat the purpose of a uniform infobox and make it even more confusing than it already is, but ommiting them altogether does not serve readers right either.  The bottom line: I, having seen what the end result is, am very much against using  for Russian cities, but am not at all concerned about using it for other nations, especially if it causes no problems there.  The ultimate decision should be made by the people who know the subject, not by the people who create tools. Incidentally, this whole infobox standardization movement looks very much like numerous attempts to standardize "subdivisions" terminology across Wikipedia—all of those attempts failed dismally because despite obvious similarities there are just too many region-specific details calling for exceptions.  Standadization is great, but only when it does not stand in the way of accuracy and convenience of both editors and readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really need this template?

message: Elevation should probably be added.  Something like Elevation_m = —MJCdetroit 16:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that.  I've seen it in some other infoboxes, but where do the elevation data come from?  I also imagine some of the larger  cities wouldn't have uniform elevation; how is that handled?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's the reason why I didn't implement elevation in this template—I don't know any reliable sources.  Should the situation change in future, I trust it won't be too difficult to add a new field.  As for the auto-conversion—that's a quite useful feature.  This template's only fields which require conversion are the area and the population density, but I see you already started implementing the auto-conversion.  If there is anything here I can help with, don't hesitate to let me know.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't know.  These sources don't look particularly reliable to me somehow (I'm referring to the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" of WP:RS).  I'd rather have something more official—not necessarily from the government, but at least from an academic institution of some sort, and preferrably from a Russian one.  The sources you provided could be used as a side tool, but hardly as a primary reference; for Omsk, for example, the wunderground source gives the elevation of 404 ft, the weatherbase—403 ft, and the world-airport-codes—308 ft.  Whether the first two are averages or values specific to certain locations (the third one is specifically the runway elevation, which, however, is still within the city), there is no way to find out.  I just wouldn't be comfortable using any of these in an encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation