Talk:Federal subjects of Russia

Merge Proposal

It seems that List of federal subjects of Russia by population is redundent, and should be deleted or merged. I'll admit I am no expert on the subject matter, but this is my observation. Comments? Cheezerman 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly against. The list is referenced from every article on Russian federal subjects, and it's the only logical place for the rankings reference. Besides, the list can be expanded to accomodate more detailed Census data such as nationalities ratios and trends. Furthermore, the list of subjects proper is already quite long and unwieldy to overwhelm it with population details.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 05:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I'm an idiot, I didn't realise that lists such as this were an integral part of wikipedia. I'm removing my proposal. Sorry Cheezerman 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The list could definitely do with being expanded—considering how long it stayed in its present condition I am surprised no one suggested a merge before. Thanks for your interest in this anyway!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 06:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Ingushetia: is Magas or Nazran the capital city? It was apparently moved in the 1990s, according to the Magas article and [1]. olivier 09:48, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Magas is currently the administrative center of Ingushetia. It was started to be built in 1995, and became the administrative center in 2002 (the article incorrectly states that it happened in 1995 — I will fix that).--Ezhiki 13:40, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

On the second map there are two seperate regions number 29. One is Arkangelsk, as stated in the list, the other I can't identify (it lies in the far east, next to Mongolia). Can someone knowledgeable correct this?siafu 00:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should be 79 (Jewish Autonomous Oblast). I will let the creator of the image know.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 00:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Although I'm just the uploader, not the creator :) – Kpalion (talk) 09:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that. I assumed that since you already worked on this map, you already have some templates and could make a cleaner change than me, who would have to do it surgically :) Anyway, thanks for taking care of it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Note: recently in referendum Taymyr and Evenk autonomous districts were incorporated into the Krasnoyarsk Krai. Change accordingly. DeirYassin 15:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Were incorporated"? Not quite. The change will only be effective from January 1 2007 onwards, and the necessary comments have been added to the three federal subjects in question. Nightstallion 15:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Merging of Archangelsk oblast and Nenets AO Hi Ëzhiki, as far as I understand informations of Online New Agencys like Regnum.ru at least there are negotiations already going on since some month, even years. Up to know they mainly discuss how to allot money between both subjects after unification. Sometime ago in those online sources (unfortunately I cannot find it anymore, but I think it was as well on Regnum) I read about the preparations of the planed referendum for Dec.07. As well you can find this information on the Russian side of the WP-article. So in my opinion its not to wrong to write, that negotiations started and referendum is planed to be hold in Dec.07. Here a link to recent russian articles of Regnum about Nenets AO and Archangelsk obl. -> http://www.regnum.ru/dossier/721.html

Federal subjects—not a good name?

Just because subject is a cognate does not mean it is a proper translation. Referring to subdivisions of a country as "subjects" doesn't make any sense in English. john k 19:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "units" would be better?..

Or "subdivisions," maybe? john k 20:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Federal subjects" is a literal translation of the Russian term "федеральные субъекты". They are referred to as "federal subjects" in both Russian and English media. You could call them "administrative regions", I guess, which is pretty much what they are, but that would not be an accurate definition. Calling them "subdivisions" is also not accurate, as Russian subdivisions include not only federal subjects per se, but also other unit types (see Subdivisions of Russia, which is a separate article for that very same reason). "Units" is not going to work as it is way too ambiguous; plus, it is not really a proper definition in this context.

Perhaps it would help if you put "federal subjects" in the same row as "oblasts", "krais", and "okrugs". All of these can be translated to clarify what the meaning of the term is, but they are still used as is to describe administrative entities properly.

—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:38, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, doing a lexis-nexis search, I do find reference to federal subjects, sadly. Mostly in the form of translations of quotes from Russian officials, but whatever. A bunch of federal subjects in Siberia have apparently decided to merge, BTW. At any rate, I withdraw my objection, despite the horridness of having to use the phrase "federal subject." john k 21:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you see, I do not really like it myself, how it sounds. Before separating this article from the "Subdivisions of Russia", I honestly spent two days researching if another usable, accurate translation could be used, and came up with nothing better. I guess one has to remember that horridness of "federal subjects" in English directly corresponds with horridness of "федеральные субъекты" in Russian. Russians eventually got used to this newly invented term, but that does not make it sound any less artificial.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:39, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

"Constituents"? Deipnosophista 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion thread ended almost two years ago. It was decided that "federal subjects" is an appropriate term in English. "Constituents" is an acceptable synonym, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Numbered map

I see no reason for the table and map to be out of date. I'll edit the numbered map accordingly, but am not sure as to what sign to assign to Perm Kray - one of the old numbers? Or rather a letter? My personal preference would be to label it "A"... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The constitutional law that takes two federal subjects off the Constitution and adds Perm Krai says nothing about the numbering. I think there will eventually be something amending the Land Code, that will assign a new number (probably 90) to Perm Krai. We can, of course, go with our own numbering system, but I would wait until at least OKATO is amended—so far its latest update is only through November.

A question about Image:Rus subjects.png. What did you change there? Can you change the rest of the maps? I updated all location maps, but no longer have time to do the big ones.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I merged the two regions and changed the colour of the new region to match the one of the other Krais, but I did it for this map, which is actually linked to in the article. ;) The other one should probably be deleted. Which other large maps? Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png should be updated, but if I do it, the font will look horrible... ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I still do not see them merged on this map. Are you sure you changed the right ones? :) Anyway, it's probably just a cache issue, but please re-check just to make sure.

I'm positive; just reload the page, it's updated all right.

As for the other maps, here's the list (I could have missed some, but these are the most important): Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png (which is also in need of the legend to be changed, so it matches Wikipedia articles' titles), Image:Rus fed dist.png, Image:RussiaVolgaNumbered.png, Image:Rus eco reg.jpg. The second, the fourth, and the Image:Rus Subjects.png could probably use a total makeover, as they are a bit on the ugly side. Ultimately, having maps that look like this one would be the best. I would also rename them all so they have more descriptive names and upload them to Commons, but it can certainly wait.

I'll just update them for now, we can do the renaming-and-commonizing-thing later. And I agree, the last one is really quite beautiful. Apparently, some Morwen made it, according to Cantus' uploading comment... We could ask her/him, I guess?

As for the Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png, perhaps if the legend is completely redone, it wouldn't look all that bad. The actual numbers in the map can be replaced pretty easily, too; it's just the matter of matching the font, which looks like it's standard Times New Roman anyway.

I think the colours are pretty ugly and the pastel tones from the Republic image are better, but generally, I can live with it for now.

Let me know what you think.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Another note: I wasn't aware that the numbers were official, that's why I proposed "A". ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. My original map is this one -> 50px. This is of a suitable resolution you can modify it and then scale it downwards for antialising. What exactly needs changing? From what I read above, borders are being removed? Morwen - Talk 15:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Purr-fect! I just modified it to reflect today's change.

Regarding what we need: Maps similar to the one for the Republic of Russia for Krays, Oblasts, the single Autonomous Oblast, the two Federal Cities, and the Autonomous Okrugs. If you're busy with something else, I think we can manage on the basis of that image, but you're welcome to participate, naturally. ^_^ ナイトスタリオン ✉ 15:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Darn, I wish I knew of this map before! Thanks, Morwen. Please join in if you have time.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and this might be a good time to clean up another bit of possible confusion. When I did the original locator maps for the Russian subjects, my sources were indicating that for example, Koryakia was part of Kamchatka Oblast. The article still says that, even, and so did my Kamchatka map, by including both territories in red on the latter map. It appears this is wrong, though. Are there any more things like this we need to clean up, and also what is the real situation here and why do sources say that it is an autonomous district of an Oblast? Morwen - Talk 15:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I already fixed it. It used to be a part of the Oblast, but no longer is (until the 2007 merger at least). The rest are still considered to be parts of the corresponding oblasts, even though they also have a status of federal subjects. Confusing and illogical, but very Russian. :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mh. The maps I created up to now (all but the oblast maps) are incorrect, then, since Tyumen Krai is depicted as only consisting of the non-autonomous part... Is that a problem that should be corrected? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 09:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Nah, it is fine. The whole point of these maps is to show where krais/oblasts proper are. I don't think that for this particular purpose it matters either way—should you have included the autonomous portions, it would have been fine, too. The autonomous districts are federal subjects of their own, even when they are a part of another subject, so I guess this is good enough justification for not including them.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my reasoning, as well; somehow, it failed to register that some autonomous districts are part of the adjacent krai/oblast and separate at the same time. Alright, I'll start creating the oblast map later today using the same kind of reasoning (once I'm home from work, should be in about an hour), then we've got ourselves a full set of shiny sparkling new maps. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 14:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I changed the first map in the article to a commons image made by me, based on Morwen's blank map, with a sensible name. I think it's better, overall. ;) I'll have to go riding now, but if noone has created the other maps we need until then, I'll gladly do it. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Yay, great job! Thanks, man! Looks so much better now. I doubt I'll have time for the other maps, so, unless someone else wants to do them, you'll probably get stuck with updating them all.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Gladly. Now, off to the stable with me. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion its worth to have at least one map in this article which shows as well the old (mainly autonomous republics) subjects in its former borders. Russia is such a big country and its not easy to understand which regions merged and where they where located. Thats why I had edited the map of numbers, showing in one colour now uniified subjects with doted lines as borders of old parts. I think, it would be more understandable. And actually I doubt that Perm Region got a new subject number (shown as 90). My girlfriend is from over there, she said, it stayed 59. May be somebody can validate the informations? Thanks guys! --Fremantleboy 21:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The "59" you are referring to is probably the number used on license plates. They are definitely not going to change all license plates just because Perm Oblast and Permyakia merged. However, this number is used not only on car license plates, but also in many other places. Once a new federal subject is formed, it should be assigned a new number which, in this case, is 90 (I'll try to find some Russian sources next week; I'm sure I saw this somewhere). How the old numbers are handled, depends on the situation. As for the map, showing defunct federal subjects with dotted borders does actually sound like a good idea. There are not that many of them anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My proposal would be to have the two maps at the top show the current situation, but to have a map highlighting the mergers that have taken place or will take place at the bottom -- preferably, we would have a map which really concentrated on highlighting mergers and didn't duplicate information already present in the two maps at the top. —Nightstallion (?) 12:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the numbers don't only present the license plates, but as well is an administrative numbering system, so possibly you are right, Ezhiki. And I agree to Nighstallion to let the upper maps as they are and produce another map for the "Mergers" chapter. For the time I would add the already existing map with the numbers over there and start to produce a new one next days which really shows the proposed and executed mergings. But tell me, what to do with the map which right now is shown in mergers chapter? it absolutly has nothing to do with merging. For right now I let it over there, if you like just move or delete it. --Fremantleboy 12:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

I've mostly retired from mapmaking now, and was mainly setting off things by drawing maps for countries with no maps at the time. Luckily now there are a lot more map-makers. Morwen - Talk 16:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've only got three requests: Could you create the three missing subdivision maps for the Southern, Northwestern, and Urals federal districts? I tried a few times, but just couldn't get them to look like yours in the other four articles... Thanks a lot! ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New maps created

Image:Russia-Subdivisions.png (which is also in need of the legend to be changed, so it matches Wikipedia articles' titles), Image:Rus fed dist.png, Image:RussiaVolgaNumbered.png, Image:Rus eco reg.jpg. The second, the fourth, and the Image:Rus Subjects.png could probably use a total makeover, as they are a bit on the ugly side.

Well, let's see. I copied the shiny, colourful numbered map to the commons and gave it a sensible name. (Image:Federal subjects of Russia (by number).png) Then I created replacements for the federal districts map (Image:Federal districts of Russia.png), for the economic regions map (Image:Economic regions of Russia.png), and for the map with the different colours for different entities (Image:Federal subjects of Russia (by type).png). And now I'll try to make maps for the other four types of entities look as good as Cantus' modification of Morwen's map... Wish me luck. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 20:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Good luck wishes you got. By the way, if you can't match Cantus' republics map exactly, it would probably be OK if you do your own version of it as well, so all six maps (for republics, krais, oblasts, autonomous oblast, autonomous districts, and federal cities) look similar.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Now we've got:

• Image:Republics of Russia.png
• Image:Krais of Russia.png
• Image:Oblasts of Russia.png
• Image:Autonomous oblast of Russia.png
• Image:Federal cities of Russia.png
• Image:Autonomous districts of Russia.png

I had to make the Oblasts image double-size so that I could fit the numbers in without hurting myself, but I think it should work that way (included in the article at the same width as the other images, is magnified to readable size when you click on it). What do you think? ナイトスタリオン ✉ 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Do you think you are going to be around in future to update these maps after the mergers take place? It's always a problem with good maps—no one can update them quite right if the original author is no longer available.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I'll be around, yeah. It was no big deal, actually, so just in case: I took Morwen's original (for the borders) and Cantus' map with the republics (for the pastel colours), then erased the borders of the entities I didn't need for the map, filled the entities with appropriate colours, then resized the map to 600px width, then entered the numbers (Tahoma, size 17). That's it, pretty much. But yeah, I think I'll be around. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 19:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the April referendum

To whom it may concern – I s'pose mainly Ezhiki ;) – in two news reports on the merger referendum [2] [3], the question is given as

Do you agree that the Irkutsk Region and the Ust-Ordynsky Buryatia Autonomous Area will unite into a new subject of the Russian Federation – an Irkutsk Region, in the composition of which the Ust-Ordynsky Buryatia Autonomous Area will be an administrative and territorial entity with a special status, defined by the Charter of a new subject of the Russian Federation in compliance with legislation of the Russian Federation?

Does this mean that the UOBAO will simply be merged into Irkutsk Oblast, instead of creating a new Irkutsk Krai? —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you are really on top of these news! Btw, itar-tass link you provided no longer works, so here's a link to the Irkutsk news site; and another one with the question spelled out (both in Russian).

I try to (be on top of the news), yeah. ;) Sadly, I don't know Russian (yet), but still thanks for the links.

The merger itself will be conducted the exact same way as it was suggested before, but yes, you are correct, according to how the question is now worded, the united federal subject will be called "Irkutsk Oblast" if referendum is successful, not "Irkutsk Krai". The arrangement will most likely be similar to one with Perm Krai;that is, UOBAO will continue to exist as a separate entity with a separate budget (and, perhaps, legislature) within Irkutsk Oblast for a while before being absorbed completely. The only difference is that there is going to be no name change.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

nods I assumed so, yes. Thanks for the confirmation! —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

An anonymous editor insists on inserting the following passage (underlined) to the overview table in the Subjects of the Russian Federation section of this article:

1 autonomous oblast (province) (автономная область; avtonomnaya oblast)—the so-called Jewish Autonomous Province

I have three issues with this addition:

1. autonomous oblast, called autonomous province—linking should be done directly to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, not through a redirect. Using a redirect in this case is confusing to readers.
2. so-called—it is not "so-called", it is "called" that name. Cmp. with: "the biggest country in the world is so-called Russia". Sounds just as ridiculous.
3. Why even mention JAO on this line? In the same summary table, none of the republics, krais, oblasts are listed, what's the point of listing an autonomous oblast? It simply breaks the logic of the summary table. Apart from dubious convenience of saving the reader time to scroll down the list below or to click on the the autonomous oblasts of Russia link, I see no benefits.

Considering this, I replaced the addition with a simple direct link to Jewish Autonomous Oblast as a compromise. It addresses issues one and two, but not three. I hope the anonymous editor sees my points and eventually removes the link (him/her)self.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that for you/him, I see no reason to give it special treatment. Hope that's okay. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 00:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Order

As someone who has been looking for a systematic description of the admin structure of Russia for a while, I found these pages fascinating and thanks to all who have made it possible - especially the maps. My question is about the order of the different classes of Federal subject. Is there any significance in the order they are presented? As an outsider I would have thought the autonomous okrugs should have followed the republics if the list was orderd by degree of autonomy. Perhaps there is some other historic basis?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Normanthehat (talk • contribs) .

I am glad you found the article useful. Now, to answer your question—the federal subjects are listed in the order they were listed in the 1993 Constitution of Russia. There've been a few changes since then, but in general the order is still the same. Please let me know if you have any further questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you. What about subordinate levels of government? Are there the equivalents of British or American counties; German Landkreis? If so are they the same or similar for each category of Federal Subject?

Normthehat

Yup, it's all available in Wikipedia. For a general overview, see subdivisions of Russia. For the administrative divisions of each federal subject, start with Template:Administrative divisions of the Russian federal subjects (each federal subject regulates its administrative and territorial structure on its own, so they are all different). You may also find types of settlements in Russia to be of interest.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)