| Revision as of 15:32, 13 May 2006 editDDima (talk | contribs)Administrators41,732 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:36, 21 May 2006 edit undoAlexPU (talk | contribs)1,916 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| **] or ], as a kind of "large provincial city" (no offense :) | **] or ], as a kind of "large provincial city" (no offense :) | ||
| Any other thoughts?] 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | Any other thoughts?] 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I agree that Americans might not know all of the 25 "principal" cities but they should remain here because they are important oblast adminstrative centers. We could possibly rename it ''main administrative cities'' or smthing like that. And about developing those 25 cities, I did as much as I could with the small amount of info I have, i.e adding some minor info (sometimes more info), some pictures, and the corresponding infoboxes. At least now they look more decent than they were before. But as I said, they should remain here. —] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | :I agree that Americans might not know all of the 25 "principal" cities but they should remain here because they are important oblast adminstrative centers. We could possibly rename it ''main administrative cities'' or smthing like that. And about developing those 25 cities, I did as much as I could with the small amount of info I have, i.e adding some minor info (sometimes more info), some pictures, and the corresponding infoboxes. At least now they look more decent than they were before. But as I said, they should remain here. —] <sup>]</sup> 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::"As you said" :)? "They should" :)? Look, I find your non-cooperativeness disturbing... I'm here for three years but I don't use such wording. So I'll just edit unilaterally if you don't compromise :((. Of course I won't reduce the number of cities if you promise to develop them. But rewording of this template is I believe really needed.] 12:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:36, 21 May 2006
People, I don't like both the look and the content of this table. On the look: after you renamed oblasts in 2004 (while I, the founder of the Subdivisions topic :)), was absent), the oblast names look typically ambiguous :(. Seeing the title Poltava for both the Poltava Oblast (instead of Poltavska) and the Poltava proper links, the reader simply suspects editing mistake!! So I think the links for oblasts should be named in full. I guess it would make the table larger and less editable - but not confusing.
On content: having 25 principal cities for such a non-important world country as Ukraine is boring. You'd say: that's encyclopedia! But I ask: how many Americans know 25 principal U.S. cities? Practically, I'd never call Lutsk or Kirovohrad (with all my respect) a "principal city" in a political and/or economic sense. And, BTW, who's gonna develop all those 25 city pages :)))? My suggestions are (variants):
- ten or better five biggest cities (by population)
- cities that represent typical regional subcultures:
Any other thoughts?AlexPU 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that Americans might not know all of the 25 "principal" cities but they should remain here because they are important oblast adminstrative centers. We could possibly rename it main administrative cities or smthing like that. And about developing those 25 cities, I did as much as I could with the small amount of info I have, i.e adding some minor info (sometimes more info), some pictures, and the corresponding infoboxes. At least now they look more decent than they were before. But as I said, they should remain here. —DDima 15:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- "As you said" :)? "They should" :)? Look, I find your non-cooperativeness disturbing... I'm here for three years but I don't use such wording. So I'll just edit unilaterally if you don't compromise :((. Of course I won't reduce the number of cities if you promise to develop them. But rewording of this template is I believe really needed.AlexPU 12:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)