Talk:List of administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea

Layout

Hi, Ëzhiki. Here's my late, but hopefully better than never reply to your request. I've had a look a the nomination for FL, but I can't find any discussion specifically about the layout to review, so my apologies if I'm working against consensus.

My general philosophy is to eliminate every unnecessary element, and simplify everything that's left as much as possible. Simplify the layout, eliminate tables used for layout. Format the cities consistently with the districts, even though they have less information (perhaps they could each use a location map with a dot or circle). For the location maps, I would remove the thumbnail frame, since the section heading already identifies each one, and make it small, since labels and details are already presented in the main map.

The information really is quite structured, with each section essentially like an infobox, so maybe a table layout is the best solution. I think the grey background and rules are superfluous, though.

I'd also like to see the Adyghe names transliterated, if possible.

Anyway, below is my attempt. —Michael Z. 2007-01-18 16:05 Z

Cities and towns under republic jurisdiction

Maykop

• [Майкоп, Maykop] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)
• [Мыекъуапэ, Myyekuape] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)
• Population: 156,931

Adygeysk

• [Адыгейск, Adygeysk] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)
• [Адыгэкъалэ, Adygekale] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)
• Population: 12,209

Districts

Giaginsky District

• [Гиагинский, Giaginsky] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)
• [Джэджэ, Dzhedzhe] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help)
• Population: 33,458
• Administrative center: stanitsa of Giaginskaya

Rural okrugs:

• Ayryumovsky (Айрюмовский)
• Dondukovsky (Дондуковский)
• Giaginsky (Гиагинский)
• Kelermessky (Келермесский)
• Sergiyevsky (Сергиевский)

Comments

Hi, Michael! Thank you very much for your feedback. The layout issue was only briefly touched during the FLC, so I can't say there really is a consensus regarding how the things should look like.

Regarding your draft above, I'd like to make some comments and solicit a bit further advice from you. During the nomination, two people mentioned that having some information on how the types of rural settlements are different from one another would be useful. While there is no difference in their status at present time, historically all types of rural settlement developed differently, but along the same patterns inside each type (e.g., auls were Adyghe villages, settlements were established during Soviet times, khutors were usually villages of the Russian settlers, etc.). I was able to find an excellent source dealing with the issue of types of rural settlements in Adygea, and I would also like to add the numbers of rural settlements each rural okrug includes, with percentages for each type, as well as with population distribution. With your proposed layout, I am not quite sure where to include those numbers. Perhaps, the table layout would work better in that case after all? I also don't quite like how the maps are placed in your draft. Any way to move them to the right without framing them? That's just a matter of my personal taste, though.

As for your other concerns. I don't have locator maps for Maykop and Adygeysk. The person who made the locator maps left Wikipedia (hopefully, temporarily) due to being busy in real life. Unless there is someone capable of producing two consistently looking maps, I'm afraid I can't do much about it. As for romanizing Adyghe names, I'll see what I can do. There are no BGN/PCGN conventions for Adyghe, so it's going to be either ISO-9 or ALA-LC, sets of rules for which I have to find first.

Again, thank you for looking into this, Michael. Your help is very much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to suggest that if Michael's layout is taken up, it is wrapped to make say three columns (e.g. using style="-moz-column-count:N; column-count:N;") otherwise it may become long and narrow. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, it would still be in the same format as it is now, except columns will be utilized instead of tables?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the format Michael suggests above, then yes; although, however, this could waste less space, anyone reading would need to realise that the list was being wrapped. Yours, David (talk) 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
PS Only just noticed the list is now featured – congratulations!

Ëzhiki, can you provide an example of what the additional info for a district will look like?

Regarding the layout, the unframed image can be floated on the right, but unfortunately it will then stick to the right edge of a very wide browser window, which looks quite awkward next to the narrow list. I'll give a bit more thought to other layout options, but I'm concerned that multiple columns or horizontal table layouts won't work well in a narrow browser window, or on the small screen of a portable device.

I did try another table layout too, but I wasn't very happy with the results so far. I don't mind a list of statistics looking like a list. —Michael Z. 2007-01-18 22:19 Z

I'll make an example tomorrow or in the next few days. One thing that will be there for sure is the numbers of rural settlements in each rural okrug and under jurisdiction of both Maykop and Adygeysk. I was also hoping to add areas in future (I don't have reliable sources with the area information yet), so that'll be another column.

As for the layout, I should probably mention that I have no problems with current tables whatsoever on my Pocket PC at 320x240 (in both portrait and landscape modes). Does that make you more at peace with the tables idea?

Finally, while I agree that transliteration of Adyghe names is good to have, what is the point of adding Russian transliteration to Russian names? In 99% of all cases (100% for Adygea) the transliterated name will be exactly the same as the name of the section. Seems somewhat redundant to me. Any other reasons?

By the way, I found romanization guidelines for Adyghe here. Both ISO-9 and ALA-LC are there, along with two other systems I've never heard of. All four rely heavily on diacritics and all contain some characters I am not sure how to enter. Would you be able to help me with those, please? I am leaning towards ISO-9, but will have to look at all four closer once again just to make sure. As usual, thanks for all your help! Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the romanized Russian. The only point in having it is to demonstrate the relationship between the subheading and the Russian and Adyghe names, in both Cyrillic and Latin—it isn't necessary for its own sake, but by consistency it clarifies everything around it, especially for non-Cyrillic readers. We can compare versions with and without to help decide whether to keep or remove it.

I can help enter the romanized Adyghe names, based on the PDF. Let me know which transliteration scheme to use. —Michael Z. 2007-01-19 06:41 Z

References

New draft

I apologize for the delay with my response—it took me longer than I anticipated to find all of the sources I needed.

I have placed a new draft of this list in User:Ezhiki/Administrative divisions of Adygea. The "Administrative divisions stucture" section has been significantly expanded. I have also listed "the number of rural settlements in jurisdiction" of both Maykop and Adygeysk. I do have this information for each rural okrug as well, but this is where I need your help in figuring out what format would work the best in the end. One of my ideas was to put a short sentence in the lead of each district subsection describing where the district is located, e.g.:

Giaginsky District (Russian: Гиагинский район, Giaginsky rayon; Adyghe: Джэджэ район, Džèdžè rajon) is located in the middle part of the Republic of Adygea.

This will allow to get rid of the link in the section title, as well as of the ugly small Russian/Adyghe print right below it.

As for the romanization of Adyghe, I believe that ISO-9 will do a better job than ALA-LC. Michael, if you still want to help with that, I'd be most grateful.

Feel free to play with the draft in my userspace in any way you see fit. I do have plans for adding a little more information about cities/towns/urban-type settlements, but that will have no effect on the layout. Thanks again for all your help, folks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, David!

As promised, here is my analysis and comments regarding this new draft:

1. Adyghe[an?] people. "Adyghe" is correct. Wikipedia's main article is located at Adyghe, and my almighty Russian-English linguistic dictionary gives two variants—"Adygei" or "Adyghe". "Adyghean" (or "Adyghian") is not incorrect (Britannica and Encarta use them), but neither is just "Adyghe". I'd just leave it as is.
2. near[est?] city of Krasnodar. Krasnodar was indeed the nearest city, but that's not the reason why it was selected. Adyghe AO was split from Kuban-Black Sea Oblast, of which Krasnodar was the administrative center. Due to lack of cities in Adygea and to Krasnodar's recent role as the administrative center, it was used as an administrative center. The fact that it was the nearest city was just a convenient coincidence. I'd go with "near".
3. 1924 reorganization. It's 32 selsovets, not rural okrugs. "Rural okrugs", while they are essentially the same thing as selsovets, were only introduced after 1991. Maybe it's a good idea to link selsoviet from this sentence, even though it would be a duplicate link.
4. 1930s; "integration" with Russians. "Integration" is too strong of a term here; possibly POV. In the 1930s, regions with high ratio of ethnic population were seen as dangerous, so all kinds of attempts were being made to lower this ratio. In case of Adygea, a predominantly Russian district (Maykopsky) was given to Adygea, which reduced the percentage of the Adyghe considerably. I doubt many Adyghe people would take it lightly if the process is called "integration".
5. Tuapse. Tuapse was not rejected in favor of Maykop. From what I understand, Tuapse was rejected, and the process of finding another administrative center continued, until Maykop was found to be an acceptable candidate.
6. Between 1936 and 1991. Plenty of things happened during this period (although nothing exciting). Problem is, I don't really have any sources on this period. There is an excellent book on administrative changes in the Kuban area (from the 18th century to present), but as far as I know it only exists in libraries of Krasnodar Krai and Adygea (well, probably also in Moscow), so I can't really get it through inter-library exchange :) Of course, if I find anything else, I'll add a new paragraph.
7. 1991 sovereignty. I did not think this would need references. I'll add a reference to the Constitution of Adygea or something of that nature.
8. 2004-2006 merger attempts. I'm not sure how to best word this part. "Merge" would be how Russians in Adygea and Krasnodar Krai describe this attempt. Adyghe would probably use "eliminate autonomy". Both seem POV. Any other ideas?

Please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks for putting so much work into this, David! I really really appreciate your help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up here and below!

1. Any/all "Adyghean" should now be "(the) Adyghe people".
2. Now "located in Krasnodar (see map)" (so another feature to be added to the map).
3. Done. Is the preceeding "five districts" correct...?

   Yes, it's correct.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

4. (was changed to "mix")
5. Rewritten.
6. Since the gap is quite sizeable, I wondered if it might be a sources problem.

   Unfortunately yes :(—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

7. Not crucial, just something that occurred to me as I read this section.
8. Have substituted "combine", which I hope is sufficiently NPOV.

David (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

1. On second thought, "merge" could be OK. This is the term used to describe the similar processes in Russia by the Western media. If someone complains that it's POV, we'll deal with it then.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the new draft

1. Map. I will contact the map's creator with your suggestions and remind of the issues that have not yet been addressed.
2. Local governments may amend local administrative and territorial? arrangements. No. No local government can amend the borders of the territory in their jurisdiction. They can propose such changes and conduct preliminary discussions with the neighbors, but ultimately the decision will be done on the republican level.
3. Khase. "State Council—Khase" (Государственный Совет — Хасэ) is the official name of the republic's parliament. Both "государственный совет" and "хасэ" mean "state council" (the former—in Russian and the latter is the traditional name in Adyghe), and both are included in the official name as both Russian and Adyghe are official languages.
4. The modern. Not sure what seems to be the problem here.
5. Citytown. That's a perennial translation problem I am still not sure how to handle best. There is only one word in Russian for this type of settlement (город, gorod), but traditionally the larger gorods are translated as "cities", and the smaller ones—as "towns". Problem is, there is no set population threshold. You can't use just "city", or just "town" because you risk ending up with such ridiculous terms as "the town of St. Petersburg" or "the city of Malinovka, pop. 3,000". I've been using 100K as an arbitrary threshold, but that's for consistency only. It works reasonably well as long as you refer to a relatively large set of gorods, but occasionally I run into problems such as with Adygea, where there is only one "city" and only one "town". Anyway, if you think "city/town" works better inline than "city (town)", then by all means use it. "City-town" sounds a bit unnatural; as if it were a separate term (kind of like "city-state").
6. Districts. A district's administrative center is usually the largest settlement on that district's territory. It does not have to be a city/town. As a matter of fact, neither Maykop nor Adygeysk (the only two gorods in Adygea) serve as district administrative centers.
7. ...cities and towns directly under the republic's jurisdiction... Would "cities and towns in direct jurisdiction of the Republic" be any better?
8. Urban localities. The population threshold is different for cities/towns and for urban-type settlements, which is why I used the word "certain" instead of giving a number. The actual numbers are specified below in corresponding sections.
9. City/town/etc. status benefits. A great suggestion! I'll have to do some research to find information, though. While the status itself is more an acknowledgment of the settlement's importance than an "award", there are still certain pecularities involved, especially with taxation.
10. Status criteria. The law is intentionally vague when it speaks of "developed industries", "economic and cultural importance", "potential for growth", and other things of that nature. Each case of a town candidate would be discussed on an individual basis, and it is perfectly possible that of two similar settlements with, say, identical industrial output, one would be approved for town status and the other one would not be (this is all strictly theoretical, of course). Outside parameters would be taken into the account as well, and those are usually impossible to define and legislate.
11. As of February 2007, no towns within the Republic enjoy this status I think that indicating a month is a bit too specific. Granting town status to existing settlements is quite rare these days, not only in Adygea but in Russia as a whole, considering the dwindling population. In today's Adygea in particular there aren't even settlements that could potentially qualify for town status. I'd say just saying "as of 2007" is quite sufficient.
12. In cases where the potential for further economic and social development and population growth can be demonstrated?. Good one.
13. A suburban settlement does not have a fixed population threshold or...? limit Not sure what you mean.
14. Areas of medical importance. Is "sanatory" an acceptable word? I remember when I was working with Americans in Russia, they always had quite a laugh when they heard that Russian resorts which include mostly medical (as opposed to recreational) facilities are called "sanatoria". Seemed to be too close to "sanitarium", I guess. Anyway, I think that in this case I'd be especially better off by leaving the final word choice to you :)
15. Removal of Tlekhuray footnotes I was just trying to document each statement. I guess a single attribution would work just as well if not better.
16. Rural localities (re: "following seems unnecessary..."). It's important to mention that despite the fact that all rural localities developed in different ways, they all presently have equal status.
17. Rural localities. Plurals. Don't know if that's going to add much value to the list. My idea was that the plurals should be mentioned in the articles about each type of rural locality (so "аулы", a plural of "aul", would be mentioned in the aul article).
18. Location of auls. Plains cover much of Adygea. Considering the republic's small size, one can say that all plains are located "besides the Caucasus Mountains", but from my understanding of the Tlekhuray's work they prefer to think of "mountains", "foothills", and "plains" as of three different regions.
19. Left bank of the rivers. "Left bank" is a geographic term; see Left Bank. Linking to it would probably be beneficial.
20. (the?) Krasnodar Reservoir. English is my second language; I don't know if the definite article is needed here. I omitted it by analogy with lakes ("on Lake Baikal"; not "on the Lake Baikal"). A reservoir is just an artificial lake after all.
21. Landowners within auls. That's not right. Auls had defined borders, but they also cultivated nearby lands. Khutors were established on those lands, not within the auls proper.
22. Posyolki. Unlike "auls", "khutors", etc., "posyolok" is not an English loanword. All of the dictionaries I consulted so far (and that's quite a bunch, I tell you that) give "settlement" or some kind of variation as the best translation. I realize it's generic, but that's the way it is. The very reason why it's generic is because the term was reserved for inhabited localities for which no other term fit. Perhaps clarifying that "settlement" is a very specific, not a generic term would help?
23. Immigrant peasants. This would not imply that the peasants arrived from outside of Russia, would it?
24. Foothills. All "foothill" references apply to the Caucasus Mountains.
25. Average population of the settlements. The average of 750 is certainly possible. The fact that settlements commonly have populations of one to two thousand does not mean that populations of all settlements are in this range. Many settlements are quite small, thus lowering the average significantly. However, I wouldn't decline an offer to see the original bell curve myself, just to make sure, because the source I used only provides data in summarized form.
26. Stanitsas, 1926 comparison. Why do you think the 1926 comparison is unnecessary?
27. Stanitsas, Cossacks. Some stanistas certainly can be considered Cossack, although dedicated Cossack stanitsas are rare (this is due to the fact that the Cossack movement was suppressed during the Soviet times). Most modern stanitsas are just overgrown villages with population working predominantly in agriculture.
28. Rural localities comparison table. Thanks for adding sorting capabilities to the table! I was too lazy to do it myself. One note, however—the columns are not wide enough for the column names to fit.
29. References. The reason I did not include the references for the number of rural localities in each district was because there are too many of them. Articles on all seven districts and on both towns quote a total of fourteen documents, none of which is easily accessible online (i.e., you can't link directly to them as they are a part of an information system which operates through queries. In Russian, of course). Putting them all in the main list would double this already long list of references. I don't know if that's much of a concern, but that's why I wrote a generic summary note instead of listing each document separately.

—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Hopefully Rarelibra won't feel overwhelmed!
2. Understood; query removed.
3. Have substituted "State Council (Adyghe: Khase)", with the thought that your explanation re Государственный Совет — Хасэ would appear in the State Council article. If, however, that article would be unlikely to become more than a stub, I'd say use something like "[transliteration of Государственный Совет]–Khase (State Council)".

   I am not aware of cases when Gosudarstvenny Sovet is used in transliterated form in the English-language media. It is a pretty straightforward and unambiguous translation, so for the sake of readers "State Council" is a better choice. The "Khase" part is indeed potentially confusing, but when we have the article, interested readers will be able to read all about the terminology there. I just don't want to be the one starting this article, because it would be a major time commitment I cannot afford at the time. I could certainly make a stub, but I don't like creating stubs unless absolutely necessary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

4. I think this was a suggestion rather than query; have now integrated it.
5. Agree re "city-town", so have substituted "city/town".
6. Understood; have substituted "an administrative unit with an administrative center (usually the district's largest settlement)".
7. Don't think so, so have amended to "city/towns directly under the Republic's jurisdiction".
8. Understood; have tried rephrasing this sentence accordingly.
9. Good luck!
10. Understood. I've added a paraphrase of your explanation should this query occur to anyone else reading this section; the query it in turn leaves is whether or not it is the State Council that discusses and decides...

    There are multiple levels an application would go through (including, if I am not mistaken, a referendum). I don't think the details are particularly interesting, so I replaced the sentence ending with a generic statement. Feel free to revise if you think it sounds awkward.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

11. Have replaced all "February 2007" with "2007".
12. Integrated.
13. Have rephrased according to my understanding.
14. At present, "sanatory" seems the most appropriate description that comes to mind, American amusement notwithstanding; I'd say descriptions such as "medical" allude too strongly to single institutions (even if spread across a campus). "Sanatory" also seems to include some degree of treatment ("sanatorium") as well as convalescence/recuperation ("sanatarium"). I'm aware, though, that this is merely my understanding of the terms. (Perhaps I should pay a visit to one of these inviting "resort settlements" for the sake of clarification!)

    I guess you are right. After all, we are an encyclopedia. If someone finds a properly used term funny, it's their problem, not ours.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

15. I think so; but perhaps something like:
    Most of the information below taken from Tlekhuray 2005 (see below).
    would be useful...?

    Umm, it wasn't really "taken" verbatim; I re-worked it quite a bit. Plus, I don't think that would be a proper format for the references. Any other ideas?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

16. Understood; have reintegrated and paraphrased the sentence.
17. As you may've guessed, this was prompted by "posyolki" (rather than "posyoloks"). So, pending the use of "posyolok/posyolki"...
18. Okay.
19. Have linked as suggested (and learnt something new!)
20. English, allegedly, is my first language, but sometimes I wonder... I think this may be one of those cases where either "the" or no "the" is possible, as the reservoir is (presumably) man-made... One for the grammarians, I suppose. For now, I've simply removed it.
21. Understood. Have removed "within auls", but wonder if khutors being cultivated land beside auls (if I've understood correctly) is worth mentioning...?

    Khutors were not just cultivated land; they were settlements beside cultivated lands (often temporary, but many of them grew and became permanent). Land owners primarily lived in the auls, but peasants, instead of having to travel to the fields for miles daily, often settled in khutors. There were, of course, all kinds of deviations from this scheme, but that's the general idea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

22. Didn't realise these terms are loanwords, so I guess they ought not to be italicized within the article...?  Meanwhile, I suspected "posyolok / posyolki" would be problematic, but, as you realize, the alternative problem is that "settlement" is a generic word in English (at least the English I know!). If, as loanwords, "aul", "khutor", etc now appear in plain font, perhaps posyolok and posyolki could be retained in italics (with commented explanation in the page's code)...?

    I'd still italicize them. Loanwords or not, they are still too specialized to be known to casual readers. I would also keep using the term "settlement" for "posyolok", at least until we can think of a better idea. Trust me, when I see a new dictionary, variations of the word "settlement" is usually the first think I look up :) A footnote for now, perhaps?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

23. Yes – is this description then correct...?

    No. The peasants overwhelmingly came from other parts of Russia (but from outside Adygea), not from abroad.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

24. Understood; integrated.
25. Okay; I guess there must be one or two posyolki in need of more population!

    More like a dozen, actually :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

26. Can't recall now, but perhaps what I'd picked up was the contrast between post-1861 "Cossack settlements established in sparsely populated areas" and the apparently relatively high populations by 1926. I've tried rewriting this section.

    The areas around might have been scarcely populated, but the stanitsas grew quite fast.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

27. See previous.
28. I intentionally used abbreviations in order to keep the numbers in the table reasonably close together; I understand, though, if you feel this makes the table too cryptic...?

    My concern is that readers who have just been bombarded with new terminology might not easily decipher the table if the unfamiliar terms are additionally abbreviated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

29. Is this re footnote 9...?

    Yes.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I now have this page on my watchlist, so should see when you've added more feedback. Yours, David (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I commented the entries where you had inquiries or where I thought further work is needed. Thanks for looking at this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of administrative and municipal divisions of Adygea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217065700/http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_01_P1.htm to http://www.perepis2002.ru/ct/html/TOM_01_P1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)