Template talk:Largest cities of Russia

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cities This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles Russia: Human geography This template is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles This template is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

This template was considered for deletion on 2023 August 29. The result of the discussion was "'Keep'".

This template was made to contain three pictures, not just two huge pictures. This is for all other country articles, not just for Russia (Mexico) — NuclearVacuum 16:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It works equally well with two pictures, in fact better because with three images you can barely see them. The reason only Moscow and Saint Petersburg should only be included is because they are only two "mega cities", by far more important than the other cities. The 11 others that are over 1 million that are basically of the same size and importance.--Miyokan (talk) 08:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate it when your right!!! But you do make lots of sense. — NuclearVacuum 00:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying something. I really want all of these templates to be standardized. I wish to try three pictures here, again, for two reasons. Novosibirsk may not be a "mega city," but it is a relatively important city (being the capital of Siberia and the hub of the area). This goes for all countries: if their three largest cities didn't have their own interest, they wouldn't even be a large city at all. This is why I am trying three cities again. — NuclearVacuum 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The templates do not have to be standardized, there is nothing that says they have to be. This layout is bad, you can barely see the images, with 2 images it looks far better not to mention that Moscow and Saint Petersburg are by far the most important cities. Novosibirsk is hardly the hub of Siberia, no more than Omsk is.--Miyokan (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These layouts are not bad. If you say that, you are just saying to me that all of these templates are terrible and hard to see. It doesn't matter whether they are small to see, they are only for the tiny illusion of that city. You can simply make the image bigger by clicking it (one, two, three). These templates are not to specifically talk about the city itself, but just to show the city in the vastness of the country. These templates are not making the destination that the only cities of Russia (or any other country) are a specific two. What about Washington, DC, witch isn't even in the top 20 largest cities in this list. Should it be placed in as one of the two simply because it is an important city over New York City. I apologize for going off the Russia subject, but this proves my point that just because Moscow and Saint Petersburg are the two main and important cities of Russia, that doesn't mean that they are the only cities to be treated with respect and honor.

I also disagree with standardizing all of these templates. You did say their wasn't a rule about it, so it can be done. Everything on Wikipedia is standardized to some extent, especially if their is enough of the specific template that keeping an eye on them is almost zero. It would make the process of making and organizing these types of templates easier and smarter to make them standardized and "exactly the same." And to top it off, I was the one who designed, standardized, and posted this template. I only mention this because Supaman89 kept giving me this same speech over and over again, and he does have a point. If I went to the distinct effort to create and post this, wouldn't you think that I made evey code their for a specific purpose. — NuclearVacuum 18:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these pictures do look better. I simply didn't have enought time to find a full picture of Novosibirsk. Thank you for understanding me. I hope we can put this behind and move on. — NuclearVacuum 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's not go through this again. I placed the "view-talk-edit" (otherwise known as the Tnavbar) because of its ease on getting to the page on "Russia" without having to search the page in order to find the link. Please do not remove the bar again, Its there for a good reason. Let's not have an "undo war" again. — NuclearVacuum 11:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being unnecessary, the figures are unchangable - how many people are going to want to change that table? In fact, there's nothing about it that can be changed, the figures are unchangeable. For the one-in-a-million person that wants to change it, they can easily find the page, there is no reason to have this unnecessary distraction.--Miyokan (talk) 13:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there to make the one in a billionth person feel special, it's there to make it look official and to standardize the templates. I mentioned this earlier, and I stand by it. Please do not remove the box again, it is very important for a template inside an article, especially one that is as complexed as this template. It helps to make reaching this template easier, and very convenient (very necessary). — NuclearVacuum 17:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument seems to rely on some kind of "standardization" rule, which does not, and will not exist, as each template is different. I have explained that having the Tnavbar is unnecessary, there is a perfectly good "edit this page" button at the top, it only makes the template look unpolished on articles. I removed the abbreviations because there is no need for them, there is plenty of room for them in the space, and "fills out" the huge gaping space there currently is. The point of abbreviations is to save space, and as you can see the non-abbreviations fit comfortably.--Miyokan (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviations are a perfect way to save space and is not just appreciated by me, but to all in saving space and making it easier for the eyes. It is used in the United States more then the actually name itself. Sorry getting off the subject, but this is very vital for the existence of these types of templates. The whole name just makes it look "unpolished" and too runny. Please don't replace the abbreviations. It is a universal code that is accepted by all.

The toolbox may not be unnecessary, but I am putting it in there so if there is a problem that someone sees on the main article ("Russia"), they can get to the page, its talk, or just simply edit it with the click of a mouse. Myself and others will appreciate it. It is not just used for articles like this, it is being used for articles that are not used too much at all (Template:2008 Democratic presidential primaries delegate counts). Please don't remove this again. However, if you can find a way in witch it looks more "polished," then that would be acceptable, but do not remove it until then. — NuclearVacuum 15:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that this and all templates like this are part of the WikiProject for Cities. Please help me out on making this a great way to standardize these template and keep them out of the way of vandals. — NuclearVacuum 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) I luv russia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.114 (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to standardize the templates anymore, I gave up on that long ago. But there is nothing wrong with the "Tnavbar." And it was already discussed that three images work better.

Yes, you are trying to standardize the template, as evidenced below, directly violating concensus reached here where no one supported your "standardization" rule, and no, it wasn't agreed that 3 images is better:

Template:Mexican cities - [1]

Template:People's Republic of China cities template - [2]

Template:Ukrainian cities - [3]

Template:Top 10 U.S. cities and metro areas - [4]

Template:Japanese cities - [5]

Template:United Kingdom cities - [6]

--Miyokan (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you didn't agree to it, this doesn't suit me with your claim. Second, I am not trying to standardize them, when some of them were made by other users. In that case, they liked my coding and used it for theirs. They all like the three images and they like the "toolbox" as well. — NuclearVacuum 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are using your debunked "standardization" argument again. It does not matter what the other templates have, each template is independent as several users have stated here, there is no "standardization" rule. No one has said they like the 3 images or Tnavbar for this template. You can deny that you're not standardize them all you want but the evidence speaks for itself, you are the one who added the Tnavbar for all those templates, not other users. You are directly violating concensus.--Miyokan (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text is now squashed and the images are small.--Berkunt (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an open invitation for participating in the RFC about the utility/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates like this, on WP:RFC/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Mrt3366(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion about this template at Talk:Moscow#Largest cities of Russia--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]