Talk:Krais of the Russian Empire

Old talk

Also, which of these were administrative krais:

Приамурский край ? variant of Amur Krai

Ахтубинский край

Закавказский край

Закаспийский край

Забайкальский край ?

Мемельский край  ?

Минусинский край ?

Нарымский край

Сургутский край

Хабаровский край

? Кубанский край ?

Mikkalai 06:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed deletion

Disagreed with fast deletion. Are you saying that there was no such appellations as "Zapadny Krai" or "Ussurijski Krai"?

Instead of deletion, the article must be expanded, referenced, and the terminology explained. As time passes, things become forgotten. And the goal of encyclopedia is to preserve the knowledge. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I remember seeing an opinion that the word "krai" in Russian Empire in administrative was a result of the well-known process of "Russified Germanization", i.e., it came from the German "Kreis", but adapted for the Russian ear. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that whatever information this article is to contain, it belongs in subdivisions of the Russian Empire, not here. There is not enough difference between the krais and other administrative divisions of the Russian Empire to warrant having a separate list just for the krais. Whatever expanding, referencing, and explanation of terminology you are proposing to do can be done just as well in a broader article. With that in mind, I would appreciate if you restored the prod tag (it'd save me the trouble of listing this on AfD). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 20:19 (UTC)

Respectfully disagreed. When you write the corresponding section in subdivisions of the Russian Empire (did you look into this pitiful page?), then I will be happy to get rid of this one, however not by deletion, but by redirection. As I see, you a quite a veteran in wikipedia, and I am a bit surprised with your "deletionistish" approach. We are not talking about vanity or nonsense pages here. We are talking about a historical/cultural terminology which may be confusing, especially for non-Russians. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you'd be even more surprised if you learned that I am a staunch inclusionist :) And yes, I've seen the state subdivisions of the Russian Empire is in. And yes, it is on my to re-do list.

As for this page, it its current form it does more harm than good. It mixes real krais with informal names and gives no indication which is which. We'll be making humanity a favor by scratching this and writing instead something sensible in subdivisions of the Russian Empire. Even my strong inclusionist leanings aren't enough to keep this pitiful abomination.

As for the redirection, it is not incompatible with deletion. Deleted articles are frequently redirected if it makes sense (and in this case it does).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 20:58 (UTC)

I understand this page was created long time ago, intended to be a list of all possible "krais" (I also see the top of its talk page). I see that it first phrase is phrased cautiously: "at various times included the subdivisions known as krais." As I see, it is basically a correct phrase, although I agree the page does not draw a distinction between formal and informal usage of the term. So I conclude the article is not incurably misleading, just incomplete, and as such does not warrant the brutality of deletion. In addition, I see no harm in listing informal names; after all, as I see, there is a concept of "Category:Traditional subdivisions of Russia", which do not exactly correspond to the bureaucracy of administration. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The current cautious wording is due to my today's change; the original stated that "Imperial Russia included the following subdivisions known as krais", which is a lot more misleading. As for listing informal names, I have no problem with that (especially when corresponding articles exist), as long as it is made crystal clear which krais were "subdivisions" and which were just informal nicknames. That said, I still see no reason to have a separate list—all this can be included into a higher level article just the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2011; 21:57 (UTC)

We have no disagreement in the last point. I only disagree with the order of the implementation: the "higher level article" must be fixed first, and only that this one done with. Lokys dar Vienas (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If that makes you a happy camper, then fine :) As you have probably noticed, I've added a merge request in case someone wants to take care of this before I get to it. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2011; 16:27 (UTC)