Talk:Krasnogvardeysky District, Belgorod Oblast

Note on composition

Just wanted to note that the Russian Wikipedia normally lists municipal formations in the articles about districts, while in the English Wikipedia we stick to administrative units (they are primary anyway). As such, translating district composition between Russian and English Wikipedias will lead to inconsistent results. Ideally, of course, both sets of units should be described, but in practice Russian Wikipedians are busy with municipal units, while here I was pre-occupied with straightening out administrative ones. Until both sets converge, I would recommend to skip district composition when translating materials. The rest of the information is equally applicable to both administrative and municipal units, so there is no problem there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thank you, Igels Hérissonovich. RamBow 07:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Administrative/Municipal distinction?

While I speak Russian, I don't know that much about the challenging subject of Russian government bureaucracy.

I have a question about the following sentence:

Administratively, the district is divided into fourteen rural okrugs. Municipally, it is divided into fourteen rural settlements corresponding to the rural okrugs, and one urban settlement corresponding to the town of Biryuch.

What is the "administrative" aspect of the district, and what is the "municipal" aspect? It stands to reason that they are some sort of jurisdictional subdivisions, but could someone please explain it to me? I think that English-language readers of this article would need to know that distinction. Thanks. --Dablaze 05:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I am actually planning to write an article on the subject... eventually. The bottom line (and please understand that this is a very generic explanation) is that the system of administrative divisions provides the government with means of excersising its authority and control over the regions. The system serves as a frame for building and sustaining the structure of governmental institutions on the country's territory and sets standards and expectations for legal procedures and documents. The municipal divisions, on the other hand, serve as means for local populace to excersise their right to local self-government. The most common confusion arises from the fact that the borders of municipal divisions usually match the borders of administrative ones, i.e., municipal districts are formed within borders of administrative districts, rural settlements are formed within borders of administrative rural divisions (usually selsoviets), etc. It does not have to be that way (it is certainly not mandated by the laws), but it is very convenient and more efficient than having one municipal unit span the borders of several administrative units and/or their parts. So, it is incorrect to speak of administrative and municipal "aspects" of a district, since these are basically two different kinds of entities which happen to cover the same territory. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think I've got a better idea now, but I think that means that I'll have to add some explanatory text. I'll leave some red links for your (eventual) article. :) --Dablaze 07:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Accent marks?

From other adventures on Wikipedia, I've learned that Russian encyclopedias generally include accent marks for each entry, as does this article.

However, I just want to make sure that the accents here correspond to standard Russian usage. Specifically, in "Кра́сногварде́йский райо́н", the word "Кра́сногварде́йский" has two accents, whereas I was always taught that Russian words only had one accented syllable (unlike English, which can have primary and secondary accents).

Are the accents in "Кра́сногварде́йский" standard reference-work orthography, or should it be changed to "Красногварде́йский"? Could someone please advise? --Dablaze 07:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this; I removed one of the stress marks. Neither we, nor other encyclopedias usually show secondary stresses, and even if we had, a different kind of stress mark would have to be used.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)