Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Economy of Russia

I just noticed that the article Economy of Russia gets on the average about 500 hits a day, which is a massive amount for a Russia-related article. Still, the article is a mess and for the most part it is in an embarassingly poor state. This really needs to be fixed. We could some more opinions on what to do on the talk page. A few extra editors also wouldn't hurt. Offliner (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Afro-Abkhazians

It would be very good if someone with good Russian (and good English) would take a look at Afro-Abkhazians and especially at Talk:Afro-Abkhazians. I did my best to clean up an article by a Russian-speaker with only a moderate level of English. In the talk, he often gave his intended meaning in Russian, which I had to try to understand using a combination of dictionaries & online tools (I don't have much Russian myself). I think I got it right, but I could easily have misunderstood something. - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Need help: File:Mravina as Oksana 1895.jpg

Would anyone know the source for this image of soprano Yevgeniya Mravina, which is reportedly taken from the premiere of Rimsky-Korsakov's opera Christmas Eve in 1895? I had hoped to use it in Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, which is currently at FAC, but there is no informaiton listed in the file summary. Without any informaiton, it would be impossible to prove the image is in public domain. Thanks very much for your help. Jonyungk (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Cleanup listing#Unreferenced BLPs

FYI - A massive discussion is taking place at a Request for comment (RfC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. About 50k of articles are currently unreferenced and therefore in danger of deletion, some of those are on Russian subjects (like Alexander Beglov, deleted for that reason; Alexey Barinov, proposed for deletion, now referenced). The cleanup link in the title above points to a list of unreferenced articles with the WikiProject Russia template on its talk page. Please revise articles on the list,

  1. review them for contentious unsourced information pr WP:BLP concerns
  2. add references (you may e.g. lift references from the Russian page, if that page exists)
  3. remove the {{BLP unsourced}} template from the article.

We need a lot of hands for this task. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Коляда

One of the top hundred most viewed articles on wikipedia, winter solstice has a section, Коляда, in the article concerning an ancient russian holiday that has needed expert attention since November 2008. can someone assist? Some thing (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Battle of Smolensk (1943) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Course of Theoretical Physics

This is a well-known series of books by physicists Lev Landau and Evgeny Lifshitz. I've detailed the English publication history, but it would be nice to have the Russian side of the story. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Russian article might be of help here, but I don't speak Russian. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov

This recently created article of a history professor at Moscow State University has been nominated for deletion. In the discussion, an administrator wrote that he received an email from Borisov asking for the article to be deleted for unspecified reasons. The email was (obviously) not posted on Wikipedia. I find it a little hard to believe that it's genuine given that there were no BLP issues with this biography, and that Borisov had an article on the Russian Wikipedia for a few years, which has an empty talk page, so presumably there were no deletion requests there. Perhaps someone from this WikiProject can contact Borisov using his university email address for verification? Thanks, Pcap ping 00:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks like There is a campaign to remove information about this crook from wikipedia. Please help watching/improving Sergei Mavrodi & MMM (Ponzi scheme) pages (and possibly some others). - Altenmann >t 06:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Inactive/Active

Should we put Inactive signs next to the names of editors in our members list who are inactive?

Buggie111 (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nina Agapova

A stub on a Russian actress Nina Agapova is being deleted. Please cast your votes or expand the article, if possible - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Agapova. KNewman (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The AfD has been withdrawn.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:42, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Do not know much about Russian law...

Feel free to make a better redirect of Chief prosecutor of Russia, I was not sure where to redirect it to... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit by Galassi

[1] - Can someone check this? Does really source says this, and is it reliable source? DonaldDuck (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't know much about the source. But I found that Vladimir Purishkevich was "Ярый антисемит". ("Ferocious anti-Semite."). The quotation was taken from "Biography dictionary of Russian Politicians. 1917". -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but Blood libel is different thing.DonaldDuck (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lev Konov

For your information: The article on Russian composer Lev Konov (Russian: Лев Конов) is currently proposed for deletion. The research in Russian language could reveal better coverage. Would you mind to look at it? Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Forum" Shopping Center in Murmansk

  • Can any Russian speakers tell me if the "Forum" shopping mall in Murmansk is the first and only shopping mall in the city? It opened in 2006. See, e.g., [2]. I have it in my mind to start an article on the northernmost mall in the world, and I suspect this may be it. Cheers--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 23:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing Estonian Nazi collaborators

See Talk:3rd Estonian SS Volunteer Brigade#'Nazi collaborators' category. Timurite (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the Russians mosaic template

Hello fellow editors,

Several users, including myself, object to including a picture of Lenin in the Russians mosaic. We don't believe that Lenin is necessarily the best person one could choose to represent the Russian people, and our arguments are outlined on the article's talk page. Several users have also voiced the possibility of replacing the image of Yuri Gagarin with a higher quality photograph. Any thoughts?--71.121.211.26 (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pechersk or Pechyorsk

Discussion moved from my talkpage at User_talk:Russavia#Pechyorsk as I believe this requires some project assistance. Please continue discussion here, not on my talk page.

Hello. Recently, you have changed Pechersk to Pechyorsk in 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. However, the Russian article was moved back from Печёрск to Печерск, and redirect from Печёрск was deleted. Are you sure that Печёрск is the correct name? And should it be transcribed as Pechyorsk and not Pechersk? --Filemon (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Filemon, what can I say but shit, you got me there. I saw it written as Pechyorsk on Russian english-language media, so I assumed that it would be Печёрск. But if ru:wiki has moved it to Печерск, and deleted Печёрск, then there is something wrong. I will bring someone else in on this question for their input. In the meantime, I have moved the article to Pechersk (selo), Smolensky District, Smolensk Oblast - if it is wrong we can always move it back; if it is right, it saves us looking like idiots for making up place names - oops, my bad, blame me. We should get this sorted pretty soon I think. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 05:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
In written Russian the letter ё is often simplified as just е, even though it's still pronounced "yo". Печёрск is still the correct "official" spelling, and that's how it's pronounced, so I think that means the English translation should be Pechyorsk. Though input from someone with more experience in Russian translation would still be helpful. LokiiT (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
How is its official spelling known? E.g. many people from other parts of Russia are positive that Priozersk is spelled as Priozyorsk, but this is wrong, officially or otherwise. What we need here is some very reliable source distinguishing between e and yo. As long as we don't have any, let it be at Pechersk. The Kiev Pechersk Lavra is definitely not Kievo-Pechyorskaya in Russian, so I guess it is not impossible that this is not Pechyorsk. Colchicum (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The official spelling is usually known from the official sources, providing that those sources use the letter "ё" consistently (some actually do). In this particular case, however, I should admit that I was going more with a gut feeling and the news reports when creating the article. To my knowledge, no one has yet been able to find a definitive source confirming the correctness of either spelling variant (with ru_wiki not being an exception), and with "ё" being "optional", we can only guess what the correct spelling really is. Historically, with unclear cases (which could be either "е" or "ё"), we romanized the letter as "e" (or "ye", depending on its position). "Yo" is only used when the ё-spelling can be referenced back to a reliable source. With that in mind, I concur with the decision to move the article to "Pechersk (selo)..." and will do an appropriate cleanup shortly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 14, 2010; 13:00 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Alexander Vasilevsky for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyotr Slovtsov - help needed

Pyotr Slovtsov was written by what appears to be a Russian native speaker. The main sources are in Russian. Could someone here take a look to see if the equivalent English spellings of names that he used, are correct. It will eventually need a lot of copyediting and re-structuring, but if someone here could help with just the basics, it would be much appreciated. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cosmonautics Day

Could someone translate and add to this article following paragraph: В Российской Федерации День космонавтики отмечается в соответствии со статьёй 1.1 Федерального закона от 13 марта 1995 года № 32-ФЗ «О днях воинской славы и памятных датах России»[1]. http://ntc.duma.gov.ru/duma_na/asozd/asozd_text.php?code=22479—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.67.229 (talk • contribs)

Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 30, 2010; 13:02 (UTC)

Admiral Popoff, 1863

I came across mention of an Admiral Popoff, who held that rank in 1863, on "Pereleshin, Mount". BC Geographical Names.. I don't see anybody on the disambiguation list at Popov who fits the description, though I haven't looked through all the sub-disambiguation pages yet. If anyone can link him on Mount Pereleshin please do so.Skookum1 (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia has an article about him; I don't believe we do (unless it's really badly mis-spelled). If someone wants to start it, please place it under Andrey Alexandrovich Popov.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 5, 2010; 22:40 (UTC)

Hi all, I have nominated File:Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010.ogg as a featured sound at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/File:Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010.ogg. Since article alerts aren't working, am posting this notice here in case of any interest from project members. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Russians in China

FYI, Russians in China has been proposed to be renamed to Russian Chinese, see Talk:Russians in China.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

FA?

May I ask when User:Russavia/Disinformation was promoted to featured article status? Colchicum (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, yesterday, when was working on new {{WikiProject Russia}} - needed to make sure it worked in userspace first. Thanks for pointing that out, but would have been quicker to let me know on me userpage, I sometimes miss this talk page. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PROD and improvement of List of Slavophiles

I removed a PROD from this one, added the project template, and made some significant improvements to get it up to snuff with WP:List. However since I'm nowhere close to knowing anything about Russian philosophical history, I thought I'd turn over additional improvements to this project. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

OAO Mechel updates for review

  • I've been doing some work on the Mechel page, hoping that I could get it upgraded from the Stub-Class on the quality scale; so, I would really appreciate if whomever is in charge of this could please take a few minutes to review the updates to the page. Thanks, Brandon A. Blosser (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:1972 Team USSR players

FYI, Category:1972 Team USSR players has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 85 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

We got the idea the first time :) Thanks anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 17, 2010; 21:00 (UTC)
The previous message, almost two months ago, was announcing that the list exists. The current notice was to advise that we now have a project set up, with targets in place, and was meant as a reminder and a prompt. In two months this project has not reduced their list at all. Compare that to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden, who referenced, deleted or retagged over 200 in the past week. You don't have to do any referencing if you don't want to, but if we don't reach our targets then those who wish to simply delete unreferenced BLPs will be in a much stronger position. I have no idea about how significant, worthy or notable the 85 articles are, that is why we are asking for each project to look after their own articles, and make their own call on what they do with them - we'll just provide the information. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so hasty to judge our progress. Since the first announcement, this project found and tagged dozens of new BLP articles on its own, yet managed to keep the overall list at about the same length. I'd say presenting this as "no progress" is a bit disingenuous.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 12:16 (UTC)
I never said "no progress", I said "have not reduced their list at all". Every other project has also had articles added as well. After the removal of 11 articles on the first day, a great effort, in the next 2 months a total of 19 articles have been removed from the list, or about one every three days. A friendly reminder was appropriate. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
No one ever said otherwise. A bit annoying to keep being pestered, is all. Not all projects are manned equally. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 13:26 (UTC)
Two posts, two months apart isn't what I'd call pestering. We are only informing. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 16:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, they are on the same page, separated only by a handful of other posts... Anyway, never mind. The point has been gotten.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 17:32 (UTC)

WikiProject Russian Federal Subjects

Wikipedia:WikiProject Russian federal subjects I would like to revive this project. How would I go about doing that? InMooseWeTrust (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

We killed the project for good, but you are more than welcome to create a task force within WikiProject Russia. Or, there is nothing preventing you from joining WP:RUSSIA and working on the articles about the federal subjects without going through the hassle of setting anything up. WikiProjects and task forces are just a formality to assist multiple users coordinate their activities better. With the Russian federal subjects, I can confidently say (as a founder of that defunct project), that besides you, me, and perhaps a couple other people there are not going to be a lot of editors interested in this. With just a few people working on a given area, it's easier just to communicate through this page rather than waste time on setting up something grand. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 18, 2010; 14:12 (UTC)

Militsiya

There's a discussion at Talk:Militsiya#Merger about a possibility of merging that article elsewhere (because the current title is not a very good choice). If you have comments/suggestions/concerns, please voice them there. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 20, 2010; 16:11 (UTC)

I have edited another Kremlin.ru video from the 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade so that we now have an excellent quality video/sound of the Russian national anthem in instrumental along with the 21-gun salute. Any interested editors are welcome to opine at Wikipedia:Featured_sound_candidates#File:Russian_anthem_at_Victory_Day_Parade_2010.ogg. Cheers --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 23:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have also nominated the video as a featured picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Russian anthem at Victory Day Parade 2010. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 07:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracktor Bowling

Could Russian-speakers please check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tracktor Bowling - possibly there are sources in Russian to show notability?

Thanks,  Chzz  ►  23:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Русский язык

Здравствуйте! Здесь говорят по русски? Могу ли я помочь в написании статей? Я английского языка не знаю, могу работать только через переводчик от Google.

Hello Here speak Russian? Can I help write articles? I do not know English, I can only work through a translator from Google. Zimin.V.G. (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Здравствуйте! Помощи мы всегда рады; работы полно для всех — и кто знает язык, и кто не знает. Можно, например, иллюстрировать статьи на российскую тематику. Или проставлять источники в статьях, в которых они отсутствуют. Или пройтись по вот этому списку. Или убить вот этот список. Или помочь с assessments... В общем, выбирайте, что вам по душе.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 18:49 (UTC)

I have edited another Kremlin.ru video so that we now have an excellent quality video/sound of Patrioticheskaya Pesnya. Any interested editors are welcome to opine at Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates/The Patriotic Song. Cheers --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 13:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject East Asia

FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject on East Asia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/East Asia

76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there

Are you guys sure you are not overstretching the scope of your project somewhat? [3][4][5] It is of course up to you to decide how you play with your toys, but you might consider that tagging everything pretty much amounts to tagging nothing. Colchicum (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that tagging all those butterflies might be a bit overstretching, but does no harm. As for the British scholar studying Soviet history, this seems perfectly relevant to the project. GreyHood Talk 17:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the moth assessments and will try to assess only endemic ones in the future. GreyHood Talk 17:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


Help requested: unaccompanied minor in Russia

See Talk:Unaccompanied_minor. Is it true? Are there sources for this? If so, can somebody please try to add it to the article unaccompanied minor? I know some Russian, but it would be extremely tedious to do this myself. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Berezovsky article

As this project is clearly within scope, I'd appreciate some uninvolved input over at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism. Thanks, Russavia Let's dialogue 20:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Moscow

I've created a new portal at Portal:Moscow. All help is appreciated. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Eurasian Union

Is the Eurasian Union notable enough to have its own article? I read about it in one article in a Swedish newspaper and from that article, it is hard to make any judgment. The Wikipedia article is currently very short, containing almost no information. (Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC))

Lgov Prison

What is the Russian name for Lgov Prison? I want to see if the Russian Wikipedia has an article on it. Also I want to check Russian government websites to see if the prison has a webpage Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Its official name is Федеральное бюджетное учреждение "Исправительная колония №3" УФСИН России по Курской области, although it is more commonly known as Льговская колония.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2011; 14:17 (UTC)
Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The head office of the FSIN of Russia is at 14 Zhitnaya Ulitsa, Moscow 119991 - What Moscow district is this in?

Also, isn't this the specific webpage about Lgov Prison: http://uis-kursk.k46.ru/modules.php?name=Content&op=showpage&pid=48 ?? Does the website state its physical address somewhere?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It's in Yakimanka District.
The page you've found is just a list of contacts and their hours. There's also this page with the address (Primakova Street in Lgov), the list of items they manufacture, and some stats.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2011; 15:38 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I'm going to add the address page to the article about Lgov Prison WhisperToMe (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion involving using patronymics as disambiguators

There is a move request discussion with potentially wider implications at Talk:Vladimir Mikhaylovich Smirnov over whether to use Russian patronymics as disambiguators or whether to use parentheticals. Please weigh in if you care. —  AjaxSmack  03:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a move some time ago by editors with a special interest in Russian-related topics to move to patronymics to avoid a need for parentheticals. Personally I think it makes for a bit stilted titling, but that may just be me. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Writing an article about our Russian linguistics tool (Grammatica)

Hi, I've recently added a request for creating an article about Grammatica - a software application that can display stress marks and linguistics information (case, person, gender, number etc) for any word in a Russian text. Due to conflict of interest, I cannot create an article for this application, but it would be great if someone could write an article about our application. It's has some truly unique functionality and it's designed specifically for Russian language learners. It would be great if someone would be interested in writing an article about our software. Grammatica.russian (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC) (I work for the company that develops this application).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Computer_science,_computing,_and_Internet#F-O

I could have a look. I am learning Russian and it is true that these are very real issues for people learning Russian, especially the stress. Andries (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
That sounds great! I genuinely believe that our product offers something unique for Russian language learners and it's worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. Feel free to download our application from our website (www.grammatica.eu) in order to evaluate it. We have a few reviews of our application in both academic journals and blogs, so that should be a good starting point for references. If you need any help or additional information, please contact me via my talk page or via email (vlad@grammatica.eu). Grammatica.russian (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Military history of the Russian Empire

Need an expert review of what's written so far. Thanks guys! ResMar 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

translation request

(Excuse me for using Russian but it is a translation request so I think it is appropriate)

Коллеги, прошу помочь в переводе на английский язык статей ru:Здание Биржи, ru:Сфинксы на Университетской набережной, ru:Павловский парк, ru:Екатерининский парк (Пушкин) (может быть, список будет дополнен). Скоро откроется выставка с использованием QRpedia, в которой в подписях будут, видимо, использоваться ссылки на эти статьи. Заранее спасибо! Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Moscow district?

Vladimir Putin's daughters went to the German School Moscow: Prospekt Vernadskogo 103 / 5 119526 Moscow Russian Federation Which district is it in? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

How about these:

  • Rushydro HQ: 51, Arhitektora Vlasova street, Moscow, 117393, Russia
  • Ministry of Education and Science: Tverskaya street, 11, Moscow, 125993

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In Obruchevsky and Tverskoy District, correspondingly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 3, 2011; 15:51 (UTC)
Thanks :) WhisperToMe (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Moldova and the IAC

Hi!

According to the Interstate Aviation Committee, Moldova is still a member state and a party to a 1991 agreement signed in Minsk, Belarus. http://www.mak.ru/english/english.html

However somebody found a letter from the Moldovan government: http://lex.justice.md/index.php?action=view&view=doc&lang=1&id=301489 (Russian version) - The letter says that the government wanted to withdraw from the agreement

Did Moldova do so? http://en.caa.md/flight_safety suggests that it may have an accident investigation division, but I do not know if it investigates crashes of large airliners.

Also:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

An editor found:

That explains that Moldova attempted to exit the agreement, but that it hasn't finished doing so WhisperToMe (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

RIA Novosti-2

Hi, I promised to warn about new uploadings of RIA Novosti's images; so: the first part (the oldest; about WWII); the second (was uploaded in the middle of September; it's about 1980 Summer Olympics); and the third was uploaded at the 2rd of October. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

+commons:Commons:RIA Novosti/Nuclear industry, +commons:Commons:RIA Novosti/Komsomol. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that's really cool, thank you very much! GreyHood Talk 13:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Aushev tapes of the Beslan school hostage crisis

I am interesting in finding an unedited, complete copy of the "Aushev tapes" of the Beslan school hostage crisis. Since I do not know Russian, I am not sure where the unedited, complete copies of the tapes are on the internet. Where would I find them? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

UNICEF report

Hi guys!

I found a UNICEF report on Russia's children: http://www.unicef.org/media/files/BackgroundRussFedNov.pdf

It might be useful WhisperToMe (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Template: Lists of Russians

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 14#Template:Lists of Russians 198.102.153.2 (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

4th Air and Air Defence Forces Command

WikiProject Russia,

Article: 4th Air and Air Defence Forces Command.

Would someone be able to assess the "B class" criteria for the above article? The "B class" criteria has been put in place so it's a simple job to just assess. It would be appreciated if someone could take a few moments to do it. Adamdaley (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

New template

Hello, I've created a configurable template at Template:Russia topic for use on topics related to Russia. Hope it's useful. Regards, ClaretAsh 13:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a shortened version of Template:Subdivisions of Russia. May I ask what's the purpose of it? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:22 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you probably meant Template:Russia topics, right? That one is indeed useful, thanks! Something will still need to be done with the one in singular, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:26 (UTC)
{{Russia topic}} is a base template like {{Europe topic}}, {{Asia topic}} etc. See those two templates for examples of how such templates can be used. I've already created {{Music of Russia}} using this template. ClaretAsh 15:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I see; thanks for the clarification. The fact, however, still remains, that there are now two nearly identical templates used for different purposes; that should probably be addressed somewhere in the documentation or remedied in some other way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 21, 2011; 15:42 (UTC)
Good point. I've added a notice to the template's documentation. Interestingly, I think it is possible to base a version of Template:Subdivisions of Russia on Template:Russia topic instead of directly on Template:Navbox as is currently the case. I'll let others deal with that if they want to, though. ClaretAsh 00:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Boris Yeltsin Presidential Library

Perhaps somebody would like to at least stub this interesting article? According to List of national libraries, it's the only Russian national library missing an entry on en wiki. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 06:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Democratisation in the Soviet Union

Would a subject expert be able to look at this article to fix the NPOV issues? - RoyBoy 03:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The article shows tagged in 2007 but there's no discussion on article talk after 2006. (Of course, Stalin's constitution was purported to democratize the USSR, so not the first time around, at least on paper.) The main issue is being single-sourced; I'm also not sure I would state the CPSU was the cohesive factor holding the union together for 70 years. If you have specific suggestions, I put the article on my watchlist, see you at article talk there... PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Help with Russian sources

Hello all. I thought maybe someone who monitors this page could help me. I am writing an article on Hadji Ali a real character—a circus/vaudeville performer who regurgitated objects for a living. It is now a good article, has had a peer review, and I am planning to take it to WP:FAC. I have exhausted English language sources. Long story short: "In or about 1914, Ali was summoned by Tsar Nicholas II of Russia to perform at the Winter Palace in Saint Petersburg, Russia." Given this, I thought there might be some reliable sources out there in Russian (or other Eastern European languages) but the language barrier makes it essentially impossible for me to perform a search. I was hoping someone who speaks the language might help by trying out a few searches and report back. Thanks in advance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In Russian that would probably be "Гаджи Али", while it has the "d" in Hadji, it's typically "Haji" in English. Unfortunately "Haji Ali" was a completely different historical personality, so this will make searching more challenging. Hopefully someone with a better command of Russian will be able to assist you in your search. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I should mention I did run through a number of variations of transliterating Hadji Ali and the variant mentioned was the only one yielding any Google matches. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I was not able to find a single reliable source online (he must be in the Russian translation of the Guinness book of records, but I do not have it), but I am pretty sure he is Хаджи Али. There are zillions of Russian blogs which all repeat the same text about him.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks much for trying. It may not have been reported on and of course we are a long, long way from everything being online, or everything that is online being accessible through a simple search.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I did a few searches and Google translates on Хаджи Али and I'd call that a definite match. Good luck! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Government.ru and Premier.gov.ru licensed under CC-BY-3.0

Alex Spade (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Christmas time :) Nanobear (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
And С Новым годом! to all. (Russian lesson courtesy of our local Russian delicatessen. :-)) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
GreyHood Talk 12:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This is good news. We have managed to build a personality cult of Putin on Commons up until 2008, but since then the pickings have been slim. With his expected return to the Presidency next year obviously we have Kremlin.ru, but now this allows us to fill the 4 year gap from his Prime Ministership. Our goals of building this cult can now be completed. On a serious note though, it is great to see that the Russian government apparatus is now at the forefront of CC licencing. No other country has it's major offices' materials released under CC. Hopefully there will be more to come in the future as well. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 06:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
All hail... CC! GreyHood Talk 12:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Great news! GreyHood Talk 12:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Please can someone help to resist against recurring whitewashing of Boris Berezovsky article

The page is constantly being whitewashed and all negative allegations / facts removed from Berezovsky page.

I've reported it to ANI, but doesn't seem that anybody is going to react. Admins help needed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Whitewashing_of_Boris_Berezovsky_article

Thank you 170.148.198.157 (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


The Toy Army of Peter the Great

The article on the "Toy army of Peter the Great" seems to be the target of a consistent and directed effort to add unsourced information which is contradictory to every other academic (and non-academic, for that matter) source I have read on the subject, not to mention the rest of the article in question. I would suggest generally keeping an eye on said article in order to ensure that the questionable, unsourced and poorly worded material is kept out of the article. It is also a rather short article on a fascinating subject which could probably use some expansion, or perhaps integration into some sort of 'Idiosyncrasies of Peter the Great' article, which would no doubt prove both informative and highly amusing. My apologies if this is in the wrong place. I am not a regular Wikipedia user, merely an amateur student of Russian history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.222.44 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Patronymics or disambiguators?

Hello Project.

Are there any rules or guidelines on how to disambiguate Russian people with similar names? Should patronymics or disambiguators be used?

My personal opinion is that disambiguators are preferred, since people are much more likely to know the profession of the person they search for than his middle name.

See this WP:RM: Talk:Vladimir Smirnov (skier) and the discussion at User talk:Greyhood.

Cheers.

HandsomeFella (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In the past, this project always disambiguated people by patronymics. Patronymics are a part of the full name (and one that's used more often than Western middle names), so it is the most natural disambiguator for a person. What's more, if you think about it, a reader looking for an article about a certain person wouldn't know beforehand whether to look for "Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov" or for "Ivan Ivanov (Russian military officer)", which means they are likely to end up on the disambiguation page regardless of the disambiguation method (and be able to find the person being sought using the descriptions). While you have a point when you say that readers are more likely to know a person's occupation than his/her patronymic, there are more often than not several variants by which occupation can be specified. Is one a "skier" or a "sportsman"? Or, perhaps, "Alpine skier"? Is one a "military officer", or a "Russian military officer", or a "Hero of the Russian Federation", or a "sniper"? What if one is a musician (a "singer"? a "guitar player"?) and at the same time a politician? Is one a "writer" or a "novelist"? And so on, and so forth. On the other hand, a person only has one patronymic.
All those were good points in favor of using patronymics; however, once the drop-down suggestions in the Search field were implemented, it was pointed out that it is much easier to find what's being looked for when disambiguation is by occupation rather than by patronymic, because the Search field hints do not show the descriptions and the title is all readers have to work with.
To answer your question, no, there is no guideline to regulate this situation, so it's best to exercise common sense in each individual case (and preferably not to move articles back and forth for no other reason than to try to "conform" with one of these two schemes). An efficient network of dabs/redirects/hatnotes will lead the readers to their targets regardless of the specifics of that network's implementation, while moving things around for no good reason only multiplies the chaos and adds to our already-overwhelming cleanup backlogs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2012; 19:01 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.
Don't worry, I'm not going to start moving articles back and forth – only back (no, just kidding).
I see your point. Just one thing: sooner or later we will have duplicates even with patronymics (there are already som at Vladimir Smirnov above), and then we're really going to have long article names, with the dab included.
Cheers.
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, sooner or later situations that don't fit the rules will happen for any rule :) However, I personally don't see anything wrong with the long article titles (although, of course, if they can be shortened without sacrificing much, such as in this Smirnov example, they probably should be). The longer the titles, the less likely is the chance that a reader would be able to guess it from the first try, of course, but that only makes having a well-developed network of redirects/hats/dabs in place all the more important. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2012; 19:22 (UTC)
The issue is that while patronymics are well known, not just in Russian, most English speakers don't pay attention to one's "middle" name(s) as those are often simply arbitrary these days and one does not expect anyone to know someone's "middle" name. Personally, "(normal)" disambiguation would be far, far less confusing for the average reader. A disambiguation page of "A B" to "A son-of-X/Y/Z B" is absolutely unhelpful in an English language encyclopedia unless you specify a disambiguator outside the title/wiki-link (at which point we're disambiguating in duplicate). Personally, I believe the move in recent year(s) to add patronymics for Russian names as a means for disambiguation was misguided and, I think, a bit along Russophilic lines—that is, the disambiguation by patronymic meant something to those to whom the subject individual would be of greatest interest, as opposed to a form of disambiguation which would be useful to the widest audience. This is also judging by the numerous conversations that have been had over this topic in the past. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, a reader would be bummed regardless of which method of disambiguation we choose, as long as some kind of disambiguation is required. Hardly anyone expects to see a list of several people called Vladimir Smirnov when typing "Vladimir Smirnov" into the search box. As long as it is impossible to direct readers straight to the destination, some method of disambiguation needs to be employed, and I posit that it does not matter which it is as long as there are means to arrive to the destination being sought. By the time when our reader picks a skier entry on the dab page and goes to that article it already does not matter how the entry is listed—using the patronymic or occupation—the entry has been found using other means. The only place where dabbing by occupation is more helpful is the search box, and while it is a helpful tool, many readers arrive to the sought articles without using it and ultimately don't care what the title is. And when that's the case, we might as well save ourselves some maintenance trouble and leave already existing articles where they are.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2012; 22:27 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we go back and redo the wheel. I do think it would be more helpful to the general reader, going forward, to conform to how we disambiguate other individuals in the English language: First Last (disambig). In Russian conversational usage, use of the patronymic with the first name is a sign of familiarity. So, I would expect to be called Питер Вецрумба, not Питер Иоаннаович Вецрумба, at least for an English language encyclopedia. You yourself seem to indicate a dab page needs to include both the patronymic and who/what they are, e.g., skier. Standard disambig would work better on the WP search box since articles are titled by "First Last," which is the origin of the search issue. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Punch-up in Piestany

The spelling of "Punch-up in Piestany" is under discussion, see Talk:Punch-up in Piestany 76.65.128.132 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Purveyors to the Imperial Russian Court

Hello, I am looking for literature on royal warrants of appointments to the Imperial Russian Court. Any language. Help is appreciated. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 21:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Move to disambiguate Icon

At Talk:Icon#Requested_move. I'm notifying all projects. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Kholmogorsky_District#Agriculture

...the Kholmogory geese breed originates from Central Russia and has nothing to do with Kholmogory. - Wasn't Kholmogory the main trade centre for these geese? And isn't that the reason for its name? Thats how I understand Breed has received the name in a place of the basic distribution. en ru --WikiAnika (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, they are a breed of geese developed in the 19th century in the central chernozem zone of Russia.[6] But there was a time, when these geese were sold and bought in Kholmogory. There were so much geese there, that this type of poultry got its name of its place of trade. So Kholmogory and these geese have something in common and nothing to do should be wrong. --WikiAnika (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I do not see a single proof for this statement, and I believe it is not correct, but I still amended the article removing the sentence.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if it is correct either, but it made me think. Thank you for editing. I am not at home in en-wp and did not know other reliable sources. Maybe there are other informations or better informed people out there. --WikiAnika (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Tchaikovsky Featured Article Review proposal

See here - comments welcome.--Smerus (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Russia will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Russia's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RIA Novosti-3

Some time ago RIA Novosti uploaded a new portion of photos; unfortunately, they do not turn our attention to it.

Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is Giga Mir reliable source?

Is this article on Nataliya Vitrenko from a reliable source? Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be a news portal[7] which reprints press releases.[8] In that case, it would not qualify as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Will, I'm asking the members of this project for their opinion on the source since it is in Russian. Please stand back and let them give their opinion. Cla68 (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Generally it is not a reliable source. Definitely, the above article is junk.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK news releases are primary sources, so they are treated as such WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Russians tsars in WikiProject Poland

Please see the scope question here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 21:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What articles are or are not to be included into a WikiProject's scope is strictly the matter of the affected WikiProject. I'd say there is some merit to this inclusion (since "popular pages" is not the only tool that relies on these assessments), but ultimately this should be decided by the participants of WikiProject Poland. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 7, 2012; 18:32 (UTC)
Or, by the Wikipedia community at large. There is the principle that "local consensus" is trumped by a broad consensus throughout the community. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, not in this case. The "local consensus" part deals with the content to be added to the actual articles. Here, it's the matter of what is and isn't included into a WikiProject's scope (mostly for maintenance and organizational reasons). It would be strange indeed if the "community at large" started to tell the WikiProjects how to best categorize their content! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 25, 2012; 22:21 (UTC)
Quite honestly I wouldn't be surprised at all if the community at large starts doing so, especially if a person starts an RFC on that matter. If a person disagrees with the decision done by, say, a WikiProject, it's very likely for that person to then start an RFC or a post on a noticeboard to appeal to the wider community. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is this in Moscow?

17 Krylatskaya Str., Bldg 4, Moscow, Russia, 121614 - Which Moscow district is this located in? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In Krylatskoye District.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 20, 2012; 14:44 (UTC)
Thank you! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Tsarist elections

I'm trying to produce some articles on elections in Russia during the Tsarist era, but am having difficulty finding sources with the full results. Whilst I can find snippets (such as the partial seat breakdown of the second 1907 elections), I cannot find anything particularly detailed. On the Russian legislative election, 1912 article I have copied across the seats given in the ru.wiki article. However, the results on ru.wiki for the October 1907 elections are quite different to the aforementioned book. If anyone could point me to a source (I'm happy with a Russian language one) which shows the full breakdown, and even any voting figures, for any election between 1906 and 1912, it would be most appreciated. Thanks, Number 57 19:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the "Государственная Дума" article in "Отечественная история с древнейших времён до 1917 года" (a 1994 encyclopedia published by the Great Russian Encyclopedia), pages 611–613, the results were as follows:
  • Первая Государственная Дума (февраль-март 1906)
    • Всего: 499 депутатов
    • Кадеты: 161
    • Трудовики: 97
    • Мирнообновленцы: 25
    • Социал-демократы: 17
    • Партия демократических реформ: 14
    • Прогрессисты: 12
    • Беспартийные: 103
    • Партия союза автономистов: польское коло: 32
    • Эстонская группа: 5
    • Латышская группа: 6
    • Группа западных окраин: 20
    • Литовская группа: 7
  • Вторая Государственная Дума (январь-февраль 1907)
    • Всего: 518 депутатов
    • Трудовики: 104
    • Кадеты: 98
    • Социал-демократы: 65
    • Эсеры: 37
    • Правые: 22
    • Народные социалисты: 16
    • Умеренные и октябристы: 32
    • Партия демократических реформ: 1
    • Беспартийные: 50
    • Национальные группы (польское коло, мусульманская группа): 76
    • Казачья группа: 17
  • Третья Государственная Дума (осень 1907)
    • Всего: 442 депутата
    • Октябристы: 125
    • Правые октябристы: 11
    • Националисты: 90
    • Правые: 51
    • Кадеты: 53
    • Прогрессисты и мирнообновленцы: 39
    • Социал-демократы: 19
    • Трудовики: 13
    • Беспартийные: 15
    • Польское коло: 11
    • Мусульманская группа: 8
    • Польско-литовско-белорусская группа: 7
  • Четвёртая Государственная Дума (сентябрь-октябрь 1912)
    • Всего: 442 депутата
    • Октябристы: 96
    • Примыкавшие к октябристам: 2
    • Националисты и умеренно правые: 88
    • Группа центра: 33
    • Правые: 64
    • Примыкавший к правым: 1
    • Прогрессисты: 32
    • Примыкавшие к прогрессистам: 16
    • Социал-демократы: 14 (из них 6 большевиков, 7 меньшевиков и 1 примыкавший к меньшевикам)
    • Трудовики: 10
    • Беспартийные: 7
    • Польское коло: 9
    • Мусульманская группа: 6
    • Польско-литовско-белорусская группа: 6

Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 29, 2012; 14:23 (UTC)

Very useful. Will try and sort out the articles in the near future. Number 57 16:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tatiana Anodina

Would anyone mind taking a look at Tatiana Anodina? The Polish, Romanian, and Russian articles are more complete, but I haven't found many sources on her in English. Expansion would be greatly appreciated WhisperToMe (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

no need to indicate stress when IPA is available

Hi all!

I'd like to bring to your attention a little issue that user Ezhiki and I have been discussing. I would like to get your opinions on this topic.

Here's the issue: some English wikipedia articles about Russian cities, people, etc, have the IPA pronunciation and some don't. As you know, in Russian, when you see a word written down, if you don't know the word, you don't know where the stress goes, so you don't know how to pronounce it. Also the pronunciation of vowels depends on the word's stress, so chances are, that unless you know where the stress goes, you'll be pronouncing it completely wrong.

The way you normally deal with this problem, and the way it's dealt with in the Russian wikipedia, is using a tilde ´ on the stressed vowel. This solves the problem completely.

So every time I see an article on the English wikipedia about a Russian city or person that doesn't have the corresponding tilde on the stressed vowel in the bit between brackets that says for example "Ivangorod (Russian: Ивангoрод)" I always look it up on the Russian wikipedia and I add the tilde to the English article, so I change it to something like "Ivangorod (Russian: Ивангóрод)". I think this helps millions of people like me who know the cyrillic alphabet but don't know the name Ивангoрод to know how to pronounce it! Also, by putting the accent on the russian name, people will know how to say it, even if they don't know the IPA system.

Today, Ezhiki reverted 5 of my edits (for example, this one Arkhangelsk), explaining: "no need to show stress when IPA is available".

Of course, I agree with him that when IPA is available it's not strictly necessary to also have the stressed syllable marked in the russian name, but I'd like to bring the following 2 arguments to your attention:

a) having the stressed syllable marked both in the name and in the IPA doesn't do any damage. And certainly not any damage that requires you to revert other people's changes.

b) having the stressed syllable in the name makes the stress information accessible to people who know the cyrillic alphabet but are not familiar with the IPA system. I'm sure you'll realise that there are far more people in the world who know the cyrillic alphabet than people who know IPA.

This is a summary of Ezhiki's response:

This subject was previously discussed, and several people who cared at the time agreed that showing stresses is not necessary at all as long as IPA transcription is present; the rationale being that the stress marks are confusing to people who are not that familiar with Russian—i.e., the audience which is somewhat opposite of the audience you described under b). Additionally, the stressed spellings are routinely copy-pasted by folks who can't read Russian (or Cyrillic) at all, and they end up in most strange places, such as, and I kid you not, interwiki links. That most certainly counts as damage, albeit minor (and easily fixable) one. Consensus, of course, may change over time, so my recommendation would be to post your comment on, say WT:RUSSIA or a talk page of other applicable WikiProjects. The reason I reverted is pretty much due to previous consensus—I myself don't really care whether stress is indicated using the stress marks or IPA.

So I'm following Ezhiki's suggestion and bringing this up for discussion here.

In my opinion, my arguments a and b outweigh the potential problems that Ezhiki is pointing out, but I would like to get some more opinions about it. So please let me know what you think!!

Thanks, Azylber (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I, unfortunately, do not recall where exactly previous discussions on this subject took place, but I do remember this came up on numerous occasions (here's one I've been able to dig up). At any rate, additional comments are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 1, 2012; 16:53 (UTC)
come on! any opinions??Azylber (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say give it another week or two, and if no one still cares to comment, interpret it as "lack of consensus" and start putting those stress marks regardless of whether the IPA transcription is there or not. If that causes someone to grieve, you can always stop and return here to continue the discussion with the grieving party. Does this sound like a plan?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 5, 2012; 16:44 (UTC)
alright :) Azylber (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Non-citizens (Latvia)

Not really the most important issue, but the WikiProject Russia template is constantly removed from the article. I think the members of the project should decide what they are interested in. Alæxis¿question? 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sukhoi Superjet 100

Can someone help me please with an editor removing country flags on the orders. I think thats incorrect. See A380 A350 B787 Comac ARJ21 Comac 919 MS-21 or most other aircraft orders. The flags add important info in a compressed form. Otherwise one have to include the country. Tagremover (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a style issue (and one not really specific to Russia), your best bet would be to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2012; 15:37 (UTC)

Little help needed

Hi! I wonder what is the right spelling in Russian of this athlete: Artem Lukyanenko? Артем or Артём? --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 10:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Afaik, the Russian name is Артём, not Артем. What happens is in Russian people often write е instead of ё, as it appears to be fairly acceptable to do so. But strictly speaking, ё and е are two different letters.Azylber (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks! --Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 13:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
To add to that, the "correct" spelling is the one used by the sources most applicable to the subject. In this case, since the IAAF site lists him as "Artem", that's the spelling that we should use as well. On the other hand, when there are no sources in English, we normally romanize the Russian names using this guideline (so, if this article had no English sources, we would use "Artyom").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2012; 13:35 (UTC)

Romanization of Tuvan

Please join a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Central_Asia/Tuva_task_force#Transliteration_of_Tuvan_Language. Thanks. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

New List of endangered languages in Russia

Kleparów

This article needs improvement. Russian Wikipedia has a lot of information, but I can't read the language. Someone please look after it. Thanks! --SupernovaExplosion Talk 00:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Oksana and Yana terrorist group in Russia?

The article U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations has the somewhat-outdated 2010 list, and all the groups on it have an article with the exception of Oksana and Yana, a group listed as being in Russia. I can't find any info on this group at all; is it some weird typo or vandalism, or does a search by the Russian spelling turn up any Russian news articles about this group? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The Infobox Russian inhabited locality

A discussion has emerged over the template Infobox Russian inhabited locality between Ezhiki and me. To broadly summarise the different opinions, I favour recreating the template altogether, better if based on infobox settlement (though I'm open to other suggestions), while Ezhiki would rather any change be incremental improvements of the current template. A few examples of the current template and its proposed replacement can be found in Template:Infobox Russian inhabited locality/testcases. Other users are (of course!) invited to weigh in on the subject.--Lady Pablo (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a (rather lengthy) reply explaining why I think the re-designed version is not nearly as good as what we have now. In short, the new version is not as clearly organized as the current version and, to me at least, looks cluttered; it is not very flexible, it is written using hackish approaches, and it is going to be a pain to maintain/modify in the long run. On top of that, Lady Pablo seems to have been unable to explain the benefits of using the new template—to me it seems just a change for the sake of change. This is not to say the current template is perfect and can't be improved, but I do believe this particular re-design is a step back rather than forward. Additional comments will be very much appreciated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2012; 13:21 (UTC)
I have no strong opinions on the suggested replacement (and admittedly I might be partial towards using the plain old Infobox Settlement) but anything would be an improvement over the current version. I don't mean to cause offense to the creator but this has got to be one of the unwieldiest and most unsightly infoboxes I've seen in a while. Even if you're not a fan of IS compare it to other custom infobox's like the ones you can find in North Dakota or Dortmund or Marseille and you'll see a world of difference. The presentation is a lot cleaner and it's just as verifiable without the gratuitous spamming of references. At least get rid of the random 'cite' tags. (and the puke-green :P ) Cheers, eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but for goodness sake, would someone please explain why not citing sources these days is considered an improvement over actually citing them? When I look at Dortmund or Marseille, my first thought is "where the hell did all these data come from?" (and no, they are not "just as verifiable"—most can't be verified from within the article at all!) And the sad part is, unless someone takes time to ask this question and to tag the unsourced bits with "citation needed", we may never find out. This template identifies the bits which need sources the moment it is posted—how is that bad? If the result looks ugly, go spend fifteen minutes and find the sources to suppress the tags! Looking pretty is not one of our most basic policies; having proper sources is! All those pretty boxes are well-nigh useless if the information they contain cannot be verified. For the record, I agree on the puke-green, but you don't need a whole new box to fix that :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2012; 20:45 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I suspect that the creators of the other templates came up with the idea of having their templates automatically transclude lots of cite tags, but decided against it, not least because this approach doesn't improve the verifiability of the article, nor increases the likelihood that somebody will click the edit button and 'spend the fifteen minutes', and has the significant drawback of making the template hideous. This policy excerpt deals with the lead section, but I think the same reasoning can be applied to an infobox, all the more so precisely because it's a brief summary of basic facts that will be invariably repeated throughout the article: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
But see, this excerpt does not mention infoboxes precisely because there is no universal agreement (unlike with the lead). Your own examples above make use of references (and in the North Dakota article they are used quite liberally!) If material can be challenged, it should be referenced, regardless of where it is located; it's as simple as that. You are also wrong about these citation requests not being helpful. I edit these articls often, and time and time again I see anons or passing editors adding unreferenced bits, only to immediately follow it up with another edit which adds a ref. It does not, of course, happen 100% of time, but even if it only happens occasionally, the benefit far outweighs mere "prettiness". Let me also remind that the "citation needed" tag is ugly by design—to make people want to get rid of it. So, if "pretty" is your only concern, your grievance is misplaced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2012; 23:10 (UTC)
There is, in fact, agreement that you shouldn't spam infoboxes with dozens of refs or much less tags. To prove it I could point to all the templates that avoid doing this, and by asking you if you know of another template that behaves like this one does (I can't think of one). Btw, the 'cite' tag is not supposed to be ugly, it's supposed to point to an issue, which should be identified by a sentient life form. This template has the unfortunate feature of sidestepping this evaluation entirely, choosing to plaster the infobox with tags in every case, sometimes with bewildering effects (is Kazan really the capital of Tartarstan? Is it even in Russia? Shouldn't rather the lead answer both questions?) To answer your other point (the tags makes anonymous users more likely to include references on their own), a brief analysis of a few dozen randomly chosen articles would suggest that not only it does not (many lack important statistics, such as area), but it might even discourage users from including the infobox in the first place (a sizeable number of these articles, which still were all about Russian localities, did not include any infobox at all). The template is ugly, but my main concern is that it was made less readable and informative by a number of misguided design choices. This is my opinion, (and I wasn't planning on becoming involved to this extent in the debate) but if you and Pablo still are in disagreement over this matter I would suggest seeking a third (fourth?) opinion from someone who has some experience in designing infoboxes for some tips. WikiProject Infoboxes might well be the place to find one such person.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • When an agreement actually exits, it is simple to find and link to. What we have here is your opinion that infoboxes should not be sourced. You are, of course, entitled to it, but please don't try to pass it as a wide consensus. Unless the matter is thoroughly discussed, there cannot be an agreement, and in the meanwhile there is nothing preventing editors from trying out new approaches, which is exactly what this infobox is doing. In 2005 there was broad opposition to using references at all; now verifiability is one of our core policies. Identifying and marking unsourced and thus unverifiable parts is just another step along the same road.
  • The "cite" tag is designed to stand out, which makes it break the flow of the text, which, in turn, makes the result ugly. It stands out by design, hence it is ugly by design.
  • This template has the unfortunate feature of sidestepping this evaluation entirely: nothing can be further from the truth. The evaluation was done when the template was designed. Note that while the documentation for {{citation needed}} advises to use the template judiciously, it still emphasized that all direct quotations and facts whose accuracy might be challenged (e.g., statistics) require citations. An infobox is nothing but a collection of statistics, and everything in it can be challenged, so tagging unsourced and unverifiable bits as uncited is perfectly acceptable.
  • Is Kazan really the capital of Tartarstan? Well, is it? Is Magas the capital of Ingushetia? Or is it Nazran? Do you honestly believe this fact is so trivial that it can't be challenged?
  • Is it even in Russia? Now, why would you ask this? For dramatic effect? The infobox does not require sourcing of trivial facts like this one and does not generate a "citation needed" request for them.
  • Shouldn't rather the lead answer both questions? The lead should, of course, answer both these questions, but, unlike with the infobox, we do have a guideline not to use references in the lead section. Which makes the infobox a logical place for placing such a ref.
  • Regarding editors being encouraged to add refs after seeing the "citation needed" requests, like I said, it would be naive to expect it happen every time (you might as futilely expect anons to write B-quality articles on their first editing attempt!). It does, however, happen, and cases when users take time to reference an otherwise unreferenced box are even more common. Furthermore, the fact that some boxes are lacking an important stat such as area has nothing to do with the issue at hand—if a stat is missing, the appropriate line is not displayed, and there is nothing to reference. Many of our articles are missing things which are far more important than area (such as the actual text)—is it this template's fault, too?
  • it might even discourage users from including the infobox in the first place. As unbelievable as it sounds, that's actually a benefit and is one of the reasons for automatic generation of the "citation needed" tags. Sadly, we have serial copy-pasters who go through the articles and copy-paste these boxes, sometimes in such a hurry that they forget to change such basic things as the name! If "efforts" of this kind produce boxes littered with "citation needed" tags screaming that the box is nothing but a big load of crap, that's OK, because a big load of crap is exactly what those boxes are. This is a problem unique to the infoboxes—after all, it takes time and effort to write a lead section, while it takes nothing but a basic knowledge of the English language and acquaintance with the Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V combination to produce mostly a totally useless (and often grossly incorrect and misleading) box. I personally cleaned up literally hundreds of such abominations, and if the tags prevented creation of even a handful of others, it's a net benefit to the project. There are not that many people around here capable of identifying and fixing such things, so until such articles can be properly cleaned up, the "citation needed" tags serve as an additional safeguard that ultimately benefits our readership.
  • [the template] was made less readable and informative by a number of misguided design choices. I don't understand this one (again). How is a template with sources less informative than one without sources? How is explicitly identifying unsourced stats (a requirement of WP:V and a recommendation made in the "citation needed" template documentation) a bad thing? Why on Earth do these tags make information "less readable"? It's not like the template uses huge black censorship banners covering the unsourced information up—it uses the standard tool designed explicitly for this purpose. Correct me if I'm wrong, but once again you seem to be putting looks above verifiability.
I apologize for the long rant, but I take verifiability very seriously. In fact, consider this. When I edit an article, I habitually verify all unsourced statements which look easy to verify and add sources (which I can't imagine being bad thing). When I can't immediately find a source, I tag those statements and facts as unsourced (which I also can't imagine being a bad thing). I also make about 2,000 edits a month. Most of those are maintenance-related, and about a fifth is content-related. Most of the content I edit is about places in Russia. If the infobox is re-designed so it no longer automatically labels uncited factoids as uncited, I will simply label them as uncited manually as I encounter them, without changing a thing in my editing routine one bit. In a year or so, the unreferenced parts will again be labeled as unreferenced (as they should be). With that in mind, don't you think it's more productive to automate this routine and have the template automatically request sources for the lines which must be sourced anyway? The end result will be the same, with less effort, and with additional benefits I outlined above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)

I agree with the critics that the current Infobox is necessarily ugly and unwieldy. (William MacDougall) 02:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It would really help if you could be more specific. Note that the proposed infobox replicates most of the functionality of the current infobox—how does it make it less unwieldy? Also, the organization of the proposed template is less clear, and the programmer had to resort to a pretty questionable hack in order to achieve even that result.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2012; 14:33 (UTC)

I am an active user of the infobox (actually, a considerable part of my contribution are articles about Russian localities), and I do not have any serious issues with the current template. I do not find it ugly, at least no more ugly than any other template. I also do not have problems with the default source requests: For instance, the date of the foundation sometimes is pushed by the town authorities who want that their town looks more solid, and I encountered many instances when local sources would give a foundation date considerably earlier than for instance the encyclopedia "Russian Towns", an undoubtedly reliable source. This is why such info should be sourced, and if it can not be reliably sourced, it should not be in the infobox. What I would really like to see is the announcement of the changes in the template which suddenly make in hundreds of articles certain items look unsourced, because at least in my articles everything can be sourced, but in this case I would need to go back and add the references to the infobox.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the internals of the template are best left to be defined by the main editors, as long as the WP wide solution is not as good as the Russia solution. But the look and feel should integrate well with WP in general. I changed the color from green to #CDDEFF. Royaume du Maroc (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Translation request

Can someone create stubs for the dab page and the two articles, that can be found via ru:Тургайская область (значения) - Tugrai Oblast? Thanks a lot! Royaume du Maroc (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Atommash

There is a discussion, if the Soviet time Atommash and nowadays Energomash-Atommash is the same entity or not, although not legally linked, and should the article about Atommash include also information about Energomash-Atommash? Beagel (talk) 15:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

New article Association to Save Yugra (Ugrian-Samoyed indigenous rights group)

I ran across a redlink for this article so created a short one to fill it; it's apparently a 1989-formed group on Khanty people, Mansi people, Nenets people etc in Siberia who banded together to try to keep oil/gas/lumber concerns from overdeveloping their traditional land. There are a number of other groups along these lines, and so I added them as redlinks in "See also". Hope a few folks find this interesting and might want to push the thread further. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I got into this line of topic since I started an article on the area's traditional lyre musical instrument, the Nares-jux. Got some interesting ethnomusicology cites on that, and got a sketch from the Helsinki museum from a fellow enthusiast. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Where is this in Moscow?

Hi! I started New Humanitarian School - The school is at Krasnoarmejskaya st., 30”Б” 125319, Moscow, Russia/125319, Российская Федерация, Москва, Красноармейская улица, д. 30 «Б» - Which district is this in?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's in Aeroport District.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 21, 2012; 16:41 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I found Nordwind Airlines has its head office at Sadovnicheskaya Street 14, Building 2, Office 303, 304, 304a 115035 Moscow Russia / 115035, г. Москва, ул. Садовническая, д.14, стр.2, офис 303, 304, 304а. - which district is this one in? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

This one is in Zamoskvorechye District.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 29, 2012; 15:52 (UTC)

Bronyetransportyor RfC

I just got invited to an RfC at Talk:Bronyetransportyor, but I have absolutely no idea about proper Russian transliteration. Would someone at this WikiProject who knows what they're talking about like to weigh in? Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Terra America website- reliable source?

Per this discussion, is this website a blog, or what kind of site is it? Cla68 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a blog per se, but similar. According to the website's self-description, it is written by "a team of five or six people and their friends and colleagues", whose goal is (and I paraphrase) "to understand why it often seems that the American world order is falling apart, whether or not it is indeed falling apart, and what might be the reasons behind it". While the authors do have some credentials, the site is essentially a collection of self-published materials and reviews of articles published elsewhere, which is somewhat better than a blog, but probably not enough to classify the site as a reliable source as per Wikipedia definitions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 4, 2012; 13:28 (UTC)
Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Request someone take a look at Kyiv Natural Science Lyceum No. 145

This is waaaay outside of my area, but can someone who has a grasp of Russian please take a look at this article, specifically the references for notability and to make sure the info marries to the article content. Thanks, Kyiv Natural Science Lyceum No. 145 Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 02:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Perth requested-move notification

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Central Saint Petersburg and Tsentralny District, Saint Petersburg

There has been a proposal to merge these two article for more than a year that hasn't closed, and the two editors who have discussed the merger both agreed to merge on this talk page. I would merge them myself, but I'm not sure if they're the same thing or if it would be a good idea. I would appreciate it if someone could make the decision to merge them, or offer some other input on the talk page. If the two articles should obviously remain seperate, I would suggest just removing the merge tags. Thanks. Trinitresque (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Eurasian Union/

Please, join the discussion. --Wustenfuchs 23:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Arsen Galstyan

Are there any information on him in Russian sources? I would appreciate help on the article.--Razionale (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ZiL lane - help needed

I recently wrote the article ZiL lane and nominated it for the Did You Know? section on Wikipedia's home page. However, the article's review is currently stalled because the DYK reviewer apparently doesn't believe in the existence of ZiL lanes and considers them to be a "meme" of "Western origins". Personally I find this very bizarre given that they are well-documented. It would be helpful if someone either from Russia or with knowledge of Russia could weigh in at Template:Did you know nominations/ZiL lane and confirm that ZiL lanes are in fact real. Prioryman (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Anfield2012

Hi, this new user has created some articles on Russia-related topics. They have some obvious problems (most don't even mention that this is about, e.g., Russian legal documents), such as missing sources, unclear notability, and such. Perhaps somebody here could give them a hand. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice! I've offered that user my help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2012; 18:10 (UTC)

Reference to the Podkamennaya Tunguska river in a videogame

Hi there.

First of all, I'm not of Russian origin and have not ever been to Russia or even one of its neighboring countries. I decided to add this reference as a bullet point in the now-available trivia section at the article for the Podkamennaya Tunguska river, which is made in the Pokémon videogame series. The reference is only present in the Japanese releases, as mentioned there, but the localizations also refer to Russia, though they refer to Tiksi and not Podkamennaya Tunguska. I'd like to know what is the opinion of the members of WikiProject Russia about this. I know I might have probably been a little hasty in adding it (since I didn't come to ask about the opinions before doing so) but still would like to know what do you think. I believe it's a rather interesting piece of trivia, as the name, albeit different, is almost like a shortened name of the real thing. And I've been told that even the Japanese community of Pokémon fans has had trouble identifying the reference. Please let me know how you feel about it and if it should be improved or restructured to better fit the purposes of the article or if it should be removed or relocated instead. 85.247.148.219 (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous editor! First off, may I interest you in creating an account for yourself? It only takes a minute (and you don't even need an email), and the benefits are numerous. For one, we wouldn't have to address you as "an anonymous editor" any more :)
To answer your question, it is generally agreed that the trivia information like this does not belong in the articles. While it is true that this piece is rather interesting and helpful to Pokémon fans, such fans do not constitute the primary readership of the Podkamennaya Tunguska River article. Such trivia, when encountered, is usually moved to an appropriate location (if one exists) in an article within the scope of the popular culture topic. In other words, if this factoid can be incorporated into one of the Pokémon articles, then it should be (and there, of course, a link to Podkamennaya Tunguska River would be more than appropriate, in case some readers get interested in the real-world entity).
You may also want to consult WP:TRIVIA, which is Wikipedia's guideline dealing with trivia sections, and WP:IPC, which is an essay (an optional recommendation) on what should be done with popular culture factoids like this one. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 3, 2012; 15:37 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind answer. I currently am not interested in creating an account, despite the benefits. Mayhaps in the future. :)
Should I point this discussion to WP:WikiProject Pokémon to see what they think of this? I think this reference is indeed more suitable in a Pokémon-related article but it is undoubtfully interesting as I've been told that even the Japanese fandom has had trouble in getting it. 85.247.249.196 (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. If anyone would know the best place for this piece, it's that WikiProject :) An added benefit of putting it into a Pokémon-related article is that it would make it possible to redirect Ponaya Tunguska to an appropriate Pokémon-related section instead of the article on the geographical entity. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2012; 14:42 (UTC)

Unknown editor changing Nazi Germany to National Socialist Germany

An IP editor is going around to many Eastern Front military pages, changing "Nazi Germany" to "National Socialist Germany." I have already once reverted these edits in the Battle of Stalingrad page, but I see the same editor has again reverted those edits. The editor has also modified

in the same manner (by the time you read this, many more pages too I would presume). IP address is: 95.178.188.252. Is there any way to stop this? Farawayman (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can an expert on the subject please look at the article on The Cathedral of Christ the Saviour Moscow

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Saviour This article about the cathedral currently in the news due to the Pussy Riot trial contains odd (to me) and unreferenced statements about influence of Freemasonry: "The first finished architectural project, by Aleksandr Lavrentyevich Vitberg, was endorsed by Alexander I in 1817. It was a flamboyant Neoclassical design full of Freemasonic symbolism. ....In the meantime Alexander I was succeeded by his brother Nicholas I. Profoundly Orthodox and patriotic, the new Tsar disliked the Neoclassicism and Freemasonry of the project selected by his brother." Can this be true? If it is accurate it should have references, if not it should be removed. Can someone who knows about this look at the article?Smeat75 (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Loskutnaya

I started an article requested by an editor on the Russian Wikipedia. The Loskutnaya article needs some extra info, but I could only find so much with English sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which district?

I started Embassy of India School Moscow and found that its location is 10/2 Ulitsa Bolshaya Dorogomilovskaya (4th and 5th Floors), Kievskaya,Moscow - Is it in Kiyevsky, Moscow? Or does the address refer to the proximity to Kiyevskaya (Moscow Metro)? Which okrug and district is it in?

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated Chronicle of Ivan the Terrible

This is a newly created article which has been poorly translated from Russian (I had to move the article as it was originally called Personal annalistic vault) and it desperately needs help from someone with knowledge of Russian history and/or literature. NtheP (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovskoye Lake

Could someone please look at this? It was created a long time ago. Someone tagged it for CSD. Is it Russian? Ukrainian? Something else? Misspelled? Non-existent? I'm not gonna CSD it unless I know it does not exist, etc. Thanks Dlohcierekim 02:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd CSD it; it's useless. There are several lakes by this name in Russia (all over the country; this one seems to be the largest), and if there's one in Ukraine, I was unable to find it (although, admittedly, I only did a perfunctory search). Without further information it is impossible to determine which one was meant. And it's not like it can't be re-created later when more information surfaces. Alternatively, you could ask the author of the original stub, who is still somewhat active in Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 5, 2012; 13:14 (UTC)

File:Urals blank map.png

File:Urals blank map.png has been suggested that it isn't free and should be deleted -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Image needed for Borders of Russia

This article desperately needs an image (map). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Russian language references

I have come across a significant number of articles on Russian subjects, such as Verkhovazhsky District, which have very large chunks of illegible references. I would remark that most of them have publishers' names and also dates in Russian; some, such as {{Ru-census}} have both Russian and English terms for the publishers (viz: 'Федеральная служба государственной статистики (Federal State Statistics Service)') that I believe are unnecessary. Could I request that some amongst you go through these articles and put as many of these into English as possible, and strip out the unnecessary native names? If you have a list of such terms and their equivalent translations that can be applied to more than one article, I could write a script that could save some repetitive and non-standard translations. Thanks. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 04:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Census templates have already been taken care of to everyone's satisfaction (if not exactly to the letter of the guidelines), but as to the other ones, please note that since the sources being cited are entirely in Russian, so are the citations. The English translation is added only as a courtesy to the readers; it most certainly is not required by the guidelines. You should be happy that someone even volunteers to provide the translations of any kind, when doing so is very much optional (and time-consuming!). What's more, for the information referenced with the Russian-language sources, most of the time there are no English-language sources of equal quality, and while that's unfortunate, it does not diminish the quality or importance of the foreign-language sources in any way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2012; 17:56 (UTC)

Nomination of The Hobbit (1985 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Hobbit (1985 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hobbit (1985 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

This film is the Soviet ballet-style adaptation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
For the record: The article was improved and eventually kept.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Berlin victory parade in 1945/1945

Perhaps some Russian language sources can be found to help expand the Berlin Victory Parade of 1945 and clarify the potential mislabeling of photos as described at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Wrong_commons_description.3F_1946_Allied_Victory_Parade_in_Berlin ? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Geology of Russia

The article Geology of Russia was suddenly expanded with a machine translation of a Ukranian article, with a far from satisfactory result. Some members of WikiProject Geology have been working to improve it, but we could use some help with the translation. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Yakuts Americans

The Yakuts from the Sakha (Yakutia) Republic, east Russia, could be considered people from "Middle East" (Yakuts are not Russian Europeans because they are of the east of Russia, in Asia)?. I believe the Yakut American should be put in some template related with this group for that they are more easy localized in the articles of ethic groups of United States and, because they are culturally Turkish, I believe more appropriate to include in the template "American Middle East". I would wanted to get their views on the incorporation of the American ethnic group to that template.- --Isinbill (talk) 10:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

IgroMir

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IgroMir

so i made this article about the gaming expo in russia moscow which has at least 100,000 visitors and so its the third largest in europe. I translated the it from the russian article but how can i put the logo from the russian article into the english article? http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Файл:Igromir_logo.png --Shokioto22 (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

CoH (musician)

I wanted to notify this project that this article for a Russian musician has been nominated for deletion. I searched Google Russia and found several links but, given that I'm not fluent with Russian, I wouldn't know if all of them are useful or relevant. Would any willing users look at these? Users should also feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CoH (musician). Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 04:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

White Terror

I made some comments on the talk page for White Terror (Russia). I don't mean to step on any toes here, because I know on the internet that Russian topics inspire a lot of passion and vitriol, but the article is in a terrible state. Besides the grammatical and stylistic inconsistencies, there are major problems with impenetrable and ridiculously biased sources that present absurd figures and anecdotes. The "whites" committed atrocities, but you don't need to cite the Bolsheviks to overstate the point (to put it generously). I would have placed a template on the top of the page but I have no idea how that even works anymore. Thanks for your consideration. InformedContent (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you "InformedContent" for bringing this to the Group's attention. There has been a revision war in the article, with an anonymous guest writer refusing to accept warning tags, insisting on clearly biased sources, and citing even those inaccurately. It needs rewriting by someone with historical abilities and time to work on it. cwmacdougall 1:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
It gets worse. The anonymous guest tried to introduce a defence of Red Terror into the article on White Terror. As clear a violation of WP:NPOV as I can imagine. cwmacdougall 8:16, 22 October 2012

One general issue has come up under this continuing dispute: have we discussed elsewhere the extent to which it is appropriate to rely on Soviet Historians? For a subject like palace intrigue under Catherine the Great or Napoleonic military tactics I think they could be very good, but for a subject like White or Red Terror I would think they would be inherently biased and unreliable, especially noting that they wrote under conditions of political censorship about a very political subject; they would be inconsistent with NPOV. Has a consensus been reached elsewhere? cwmacdougall 14:59, 29 October 2012

I don't recall seeing such a consensus anywhere, but it's important to remember that "neutral" historians are nothing but a product of one's imagination :) Yes, there is no doubt that Soviet historiography was heavily politicized, but Western historiography, with its clear anti-Soviet bias, is not much better when it comes to subjects such as Red/White terror. Letting Soviet propaganda shape our articles is a bad thing, but so is writing the articles based primarily on anti-Soviet propaganda. The best Wikipedia can do under such circumstances is to explain the views of both sides on any given subject, provide hard facts, and then let the readers draw their own conclusions. There can't be any doubt that both points of views are prominent, despite the fact that they contradict one another in most cases. It's impossible to write an NPOV article about the White Terror based on Soviet sources alone, but it's equally impossible to achieve NPOV in an article about the Red Terror based only on Western sources.
Of course, in any situation it should also be remembered that whether or not any given source is reliable depends on the context in which it is used.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2012; 15:44 (UTC)
My (rather negative) experience from Russian Wikipedia was that there were two cliques edition articles on early Soviet history, in particular, on the Civil War, endlessly edit-warring and reverted each other, since both of them had their favourite historians, who claimed what the clique wanted to see in the article. I am afraid there is no easy solution to the problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A familiar story on the English Wikipedia as well, and that's why it's important to cover all (non-fringe) aspects equally. All too often editors think they should create one "neutral" and "logical" version by weighing the sources and weeding out those which are "propaganda" or "unreliable", but, of course, each side has its own ideas as to what propaganda is. Telling both sides of the story equally and letting readers draw their own conclusion is the only way to achieve neutrality. Our job is to summarize all prominent point of views, not to shove the conclusions down the readers' throats. When historians can't agree on one vision of events, you can bet Wikipedians won't be able either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2012; 16:06 (UTC)
I certainly don't think you can equate the neutrality of historians writing in free countries with that of historians writing under political censorship, so you can't "balance" one against the other. My proposal would on political subjects to find reputable Western historians who themselves write in a balanced manner, and be very careful about Soviet historians. To look at another situation of censorship, Nazi sources turned out to be largely correct about Katyn, but it would still be wrong to use them in an article about Katyn, at least not without independent verification. cwmacdougall 16:17, 29 October 2012
It's not really a question of balancing one against the other; it's a question of covering all prominent POVs equally. How exactly they balance out in the end is the conclusion only the readers have the right to draw (note that the very definition of a "free country" may vary significantly from one reader to another). One can't omit or severely undermine a very prominent POV and still hope the result is going to turn out neutral—it won't be. Cover all prominent aspects, stick to the facts, avoid far-reaching conclusions—that's the only way to reach true NPOV. And of course, being very careful about picking one's sources (Western and Soviet alike) is always a prudent approach.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2012; 16:45 (UTC)
But it would also be wrong to "cover" censored POVs equally with uncensored POVs. To take my Katyn example, the Soviet sources should be completely ignored as hopelessly biased and dishonest propaganda, the Nazi ones not relied on, and really only Western and post-Soviet POVs covered. But my starting question was: has this issue been discussed before, are we reinventing the wheel? cwmacdougall 16:59, 29 October 2012
I am not aware of a dedicated discussion about the worth of the Soviet sources, but no, I don't believe it would be wrong to use them in articles (as long as their origin is clear). Some readers will consider Soviet sources to be "censored" politically and thus not free; others would consider Western sources to be "capitalist propaganda by media conglomerates" and thus not free, and until the human race agrees on one definition of freedom, Wikipedians will never be able to settle it either. Your labeling of Soviet POV as "hopelessly biased and dishonest" is your right as a reader and many other readers (including yours truly) might agree with you, but it doesn't change the fact that drawing such conclusions is the sole prerogative of the readers, not editors. If you treat the sources used by one side as "good" and the sources used by the other side as "bad", all you are doing is attaching your POV (or the POV you agree with) to the text, and that is when your writing stops being NPOV. And ironically, the more you believe your POV to be the right one, the less NPOV the articles you write will be, regardless of how well you think you are justifying it. On the other hand, when prominent "censored" and "uncensored" (whatever one's definition of "censored" is) POVs are covered all in one place and restricted to sourced facts and sourced interpretations (as opposed to the interpretations done by the editors), readers can and will sort them out on their own. There is no need to spoon-feed them a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of what the sources mean or how they are to be weighed. No editor has the right to impose his or her vision of events onto the readers; the only thing they have a right for is to summarize the views of both sides. That's what neutrality is about.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2012; 18:00 (UTC)

Oh dear. No sane person can treat all sources equally, and in fact Wikipedia doesn't either; for example, David Irving is rightly rejected explicitly in the Wiki note on sources. Yet the Soviet writing on Katyn was even more obvious nonsense than his dubious writings. And to equate Western "censorship" with Soviet is so ridiculous as to not bear comment; no one who had experience of the two systems could possibly think that (do I really need to search out sources for this? The sun shines, the moon is not made of blue cheese; do you need sources?). Much Soviet "history" of the Communist period is now generally recognised as dishonest propaganda. Do we really have to treat each case as having merit requiring coverage and counter-evidence? cwmacdougall 18:29, 29 October 2012

I honestly have no idea how you got that from what I said. One would have to be crazy to treat all sources equally, of course. There is plenty of propagandist nonsense on both sides, and even the most reputable sources on either side would have an ideological bias (whether due to political censorship, or to peer or commercial pressure, or to the general public's expectations, or to what-else-have-you—there are plenty of different forms of "censorship" besides political). You yourself said that sources to be used in any given article need to be carefully selected; I completely agreed above, and I completely agree still. The sources should be of the highest quality per the standards of the academic milieu in which they originated (Soviet or Western alike), and only then the points covered by those sources should be given equal presentation. But you can't discard Soviet scholarship because it is your opinion that it is nothing but "dishonest propaganda", no more than a modern staunch supporter of the reversion to the Soviet policies can discard Western scholarship because they think it is nothing but "capitalistic way to mislead the working class". Once you believe one side can be ignored altogether, you become the least qualified person to write anything neutral. Think about it: how do you expect readers to understand the Soviet take on the Red Terror if the only sources you use are those by Western scholars (and I can't emphasize this enough: understand does not mean agree with)? It's the readers who should decide which sources they find more argumentative, not Wikipedia editors. Our job is to show both sides of the story, not favor one because we like its point of origin. And trivializing the historical debates on one of the most controversial points of the Soviet history by reducing one major side to "the Moon is made of blue cheese" analogies? Really? Doesn't sound very "neutral" to me. You don't need to seek out the sources refuting the Soviet academia any more than you need to seek out the sources refuting the Western academia (which, by the way, are still in abundance in modern "democratic" Russia). Wikipedia articles should present facts and document the interpretation of the facts by both sides; weighing and reconciling those facts and interpretations and then drawing conclusions is the job of the reader.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 29, 2012; 19:16 (UTC)
The fundamental problem is that some Soviet "scholarship" was indeed nothing but dishonest propaganda; there are lots of examples, but one obvious one is the official story of Katyn, repeated by apparently respectable historians for decades. Soviets - nearly all Soviets - grew up tell lies to each other, knowing they were telling lies, but telling them all the same. This is unimaginable in the West among professional historians, for whom such dishonesty would soon be uncovered in peer reviews and journal disputes. Remember too that there has always been a very wide variation of viewpoints among Western academics, and with the average being Left wing rather than Right wing. So Soviet historians on politically sensitive Soviet subjects are inherently biased and unreliable, and should not be treated with the same respect as Western historians. cwmacdougall 22:51, 29 October 2012

I would just like to comment to Ezhiki that while your general attitude towards sources is admirable, it hinges on the assumption that because information comes from a source in bulk that it is just as valid as from a single source that contradicts it. To put it in the terms that I believe cwmacdougall was getting at, just because something was propagated as a general truth in the Soviet Union by brute force or by gentle coercion, doesn't make it any more so than the truths of quickly discredited regimes like that of the Nazis. That is the unfortunate quandary that Wikipedia finds itself in lately, with most interested ideologues weighing in on the pro-Bolshevik (or worse) side. InformedContent (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The impossibly biased editor is refusing even the most minor amendments to "his" precious article. I started by deleting supposedly factual and not terribly important items which turn out to have as their only source a Bolshevik propagandist (Victor Serge), before planning to move on to the clearly more difficult issue of apparently respectable Soviet historians. But he refuses even to concede that there is a bias problem with Bolshevik propagandists. How will he respond to more complex issues, and how do I respond to such rubbish without a reversion war? cwmacdougall 15:15, 3 November 2012

Ezhiki is absolutely right, all of what cwmacdougall has said above is deeply flawed. cwmacdougall is bringing up irrelevant people like David Irving and events like the Nazi terror as though they have any relevance to the topic at hand. Your edits don't show much knowledge about the topics above. I personally find a lot of problems with the quality western historiography on Russia, as do a consensus of Russian historians. Books like "History versus anti-history: a critique of the bourgeois falsification of the postwar history of the CPSU"[9] have been widely published in Russia over the years, indicating that a lot of western historiography on Russia is unreliable. But if I were to make edits like yours, I would go around pages and deleting any and all references to western historians because of how I personally don't think that they're reliable. Your edits have to be justified by top quality sources, not your personal opinions. EverlastingGaze (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)EverlastingGaze

Mr Gaze, I would like to delete all Soviet Historians writing under censorship as inherently biased and unreliable. I didn't, because such radical action appears not to have sufficient support. What I did try to do was restrict text to what the sources actually say and to delete things based on Victor Serge, who was not an historian, but rather a Bolshevik propagandist, so certainly not RS. You refuse to accept even such obvious changes to "your" precious article. Best to delete all and start afresh. cwmacdougall 7:17, 4 November 2012

You're tossing in a red herring into the discussion with your disrespectful caricature of Russian scholars from the Soviet era, accusing them of censorship and "bias", when you should know that all scholars in the humanities and social sciences have biases and strongly held views. But you are misrepresenting the source base of the article because the bulk of the content is based not on Soviet-era sources, but on recent post-Soviet sources written by Russian academics. You allege, "nearly all Soviets - grew up tell lies to each other, knowing they were telling lies, but telling them all the same." - so you're calling "nearly all" Russians liars? Statements like this demonstrate an intent to impose a certain POV on the article. Please, keep your opinions to yourself and uphold NPOV and RS rather than making mass deletions based on your opinions.
You also say, "Remember too that there has always been a very wide variation of viewpoints among Western academics" - which is not true. Western academics writing about Russia are poorly researched - not nearly as well-researched as their counterparts in Russia. Western academics when writing about Russia (Figes, Pipes, etc) take the orientalist approach that the country is a backwards, tyrannical base that doesn't understand their values. There are many works by Russian scholars exposing the flawed western historiography on Russia. EverlastingGaze (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Approach this article from a neutral point of view rather than imitating a Cheka show trial and we will have something to discuss. cwmacdougall 19:50, 5 November 2012

You wanted an advice, so here it is: you folks are both pretty biased and stubborn, each in your own way. While that alone does not automatically disqualify all your edits, you might want to seek help of a truly neutral and disinterested party to mediate your differences before continuing with that article. At the rate you are going now, the situation is quickly deteriorating and you both are approaching the limits of blockable behavior. I strongly suggest you try mediation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 5, 2012; 20:06 (UTC)


Good idea. I've already made several appeals. cwmacdougall 21:25, 5 November 2012

I tried modest amendments which an editor refused, and appealing to the NPOV and Russia groups. I have now filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. cwmacdougall 23:32, 5 November 2012

Zhhenitba sound sample.mid

file:Zhhenitba sound sample.mid has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot

I'm starting a push to get Pussy Riot up to Good or perhaps Featured Article status if anyone's interested in lending a hand. The article continues to receive thousands of hits a day, so it'd be a worthwhile project. Let me know if you're interested, or just join in the fun! Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Who are they? Very unlikely that the article ever becomes a GA or even FA. It is actually about some extremist performance that rightly lead to their (though very short) imprisonment, and almost nothing about their musical career. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a great fan of those hooligans either, but the article does include critical views and did not strike me as unbalanced; on the contrary, I think it is quite a good article. cwmacdougall 16:40, 24 November 2012

Alexander Marinesko

The article seems very speculative, full of irrelevant details but with little sources and heavily slanted. Richiez (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Transliteration problem

I've written a number of articles on Russian battleships that participated in the Russo-Japanese War and am having conflicts with editors over how to render the name of one Russian admiral. His article renders it Dmitry von Fölkersam (Дмитрий фон Фелькерзам) and I've seen it with and without the umlaut. My best source on Russian battleships renders it as Dmitry fon-Felkerzam so I thought that I'd come here for guidance on the best way to transliterate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tough one.. obviously German roots and the German WP gives 2 more spelling variants. I have tried to check the sources given in the German WP and can not find anything relevant. Russian WP has Фёлькерзам/Fölkersahm so "Fölkersam" seems wrong. Fölkersahm would be acceptable imho. There is no point in leaving out the umlaut, english WP takes original names including special latin characters be it Slovenian or German.
Regarding Фёлькерзам vs Фэлькерзам vs Фeлькерзам the first one ought to be the most correct. Omitting the umlaut would really disfigure the name and the next best after Фёлькерзам would be Фoлькерзам instead of the other thinkable variants. Richiez (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Imperial Russia vs Russia?

A new CfD proposes merging all the categories that group Category:Imperial Russian people by occupation into Category:Russian people by occupation. Could any experts comment of the merits or demerits of this - the discussion is here. Thanks. Ephebi (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about the category debate, but an editor has been changing "Russian" to "Imperial Russian" in a number of places. For example he did this in the Alexander Chuhaldin Article, which is about a man who was both an Imperial Russian and a Soviet Russian before going into exile, surely best just to write "Russian" (as do the sources)? It appears that to make some obscure point an editor is needlessly complicating things. cwmacdougall19:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Russian is used for people connected with the modern nationa state. For those connected with the Soviet Union we use the term "Soviet". I have read through enough articles to know that some people have put "Russian" in categories for people who the only thing it ever says in the article is "Soviet". These are categories under things like Category:Violinists by nationality and are supposed to reflect the nation the people were subject to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
No one has proposed deleting the Soviet categories. For what it is worth, it is best to actually express opinions on this matter at the CfD page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • After seeing people put in expatriate categories for being "Russian" footballers playing in Azerbaijan or Kazakstan in the 1970s it has become obvious to me we need to make sure we categorize people by the countries they lived in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Come now. "Russia" and "Russian" are rather older than 1991. There are some border issues for minority nationalities, but surely not for Russians. And this is rather relevant to the Russia group as well as to the category group... cwmacdougall) 00:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • As CfD initiator, let me briefly restate my reasons for the CfD. a) The vast preponderance of people in Imperial Russia were, and self-identified as, Russians; and b) Most of this categories only have a small number of pages in them pbp 19:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Russian Speaker Needed for a Biography Problem

Could someone who speaks Russian remove the date of death and obituary from the Russian version of the Hildegard Neumann article? The obituary provides no evidence that the subject of the article was the same person as the one in the death notice. Granted, it's unlikely that an obituary is going to include "former concentration camp guard" as a list of the person's achievements, but unless a reliable source makes that connection, we can't associate some poor woman's obituary with the Wikipedia article of a Nazi concentration camp overseer. Also, I checked the Social Security Death Index, and the person in the obituary has a completely different DOB (October 24, 1918), so it seems unlikely that these two people are the same anyways. Normally I would just do it myself, but if someone could convey the above in Russian (as opposed to, say, Google translate), it might prevent me from getting reverted. Canadian Paul 16:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Baba Yaga

Please join the discussion on how this article must be improved. - - Altenmann >t 02:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We need your help

Dear friends, I would like to invite you to give your opinion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Serbia#WP Serbia tag. If proposal advocated by editor Direktor pass in the case of Serbian Orthodox Church and serbian communiti outside Serbia pass it may one day be used as a dangerous precedent for Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia. I would caution you that this position is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#WikiProjects do not own articles. Thank you in advance for your time.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genrikh Graftio

Just to draw the attention to this deletion discussion. In short, the guy was one of the founders of the GOELRO plan and an Academy member. My opponent argues that (i) the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is not reliable, and therefore it can not really prove he was an Academy Member; (ii) even if he was, the USSR Academy of Sciences does not qualify as a selective high-level academy mentioned in #3 of WP:ACADEMIC.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Project:Wikipedias_in_the_minority_languages_of_English-speaking_countries

Please help to make this Wikiproject: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Project:Wikipedias_in_the_minority_languages_of_English-speaking_countries--Kaiyr (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Everybody can make a Wikiproject, this is not a problem. The question is whether it is really needed. I guess if Wikipedias in these languages exist for over five years and still did not come up with initiating such project, it is probably not needed. I know that Wikipedias in languages spoken in India coordinate their activity, but most likely this is done through other channels, like chapters. Wikipedias in African and Native American languages are pretty much dead. For the rest, I do not see much of incentive, but if there is one, it should be come from the projects themselves, like it was done in Russian Wikipedia. So I guess the best chance is to identify relevant projects and to ask there.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Location of a place in Moscow

The headquarters of Red Wings Airlines is at A400, Россия, 119027, Москва, Заводское шоссе 19," What district is that inside? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at the satellite photo on Google. There is an air-plane parked nearby and it looks like both are inside the security fence. I think you can safely write that "it is at Vnukovo Airport." cwmacdougall 11:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nikolai karamzin.jpg

image:Nikolai karamzin.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Added author and source link to Commons; this color-corrected version should be moved to Commons Dankarl (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian or Julian dates for a 1917 article on en:WP?

Was this (Julain -> Gregorian change on July Days) an appropriate change? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If by "appropriate" you mean "correct" then yes, the conversion was done correctly. Giving both Julian and Gregorian dates (for each date) would have, of course, been more helpful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 21, 2013; 15:37 (UTC)

Relevant RfD

List of Soviet people, which currently redirects to List of Russian people, has been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 11#List of Soviet people. Your comments in the discussion would be welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Shimun Vrochek at AFD people who can read russian sources needed

I have nominated this for deletion, I am having problems locating any sources to show this authors notability and we could sure use some eyes that speak russian to help with this. Can anyone please help us gauge the notability of this author? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Novomoskovsk, Russian Submarine, on duty.jpg

file:Novomoskovsk, Russian Submarine, on duty.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Russian-Ukrainian wars

Russian-Ukrainian wars has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

посёлок

Hello,

what is a good translation of "посёлок"? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The variant we consistently use throughout the articles is "settlement". Note also that this term is reserved for "посёлок" proper; other types may use longer forms (cf. urban-type settlement).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2013; 19:26 (UTC)
I agree that "settlement" is a good translation of "посёлок", but I strongly disagree with some of the translations of longer forms. "Urban-type settlement" has a much stronger sense of city in English than is implied by the Russian usage, and "work settlement" to me implies temporary housing for workers, rather than the more permanent villages described in Russian. Overly literal translations are not always good translations, and these are worth looking at again. cwmacdougall January 28, 2013; 22:01 (UTC)
For the record, Doug here is the only person I've encountered so far who has such a strong aversion to established long forms used in Wikipedia, although I'm yet to see him substantiate it with something other than personal dislike :) Also for the record, "urban-type settlement" and some other long forms we use here have been used in the English-language academic works for years and are thus the best choice; others have no established form in English whatsoever, so the literal translation is the best one to go along (because it would be the first obvious choice). Using ambiguous layman's terminology leads to a huge mess and confusion when used in specialized contexts, and do not forget its strong negative effect on countering systemic bias! Specialized terminology should always be used when dealing with specialized topics directly, although it is, of course, OK to use layman's terminology when the main focus is on something else. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 28, 2013; 22:27 (UTC)
I ain't "Doug", and it's simply a question of good translation, or Plain English. Anyone else have any views? cwmacdougall January 28, 2013; 23:27 (UTC)
Well,I am perfectly fine with the existing terminology.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Modern Russian "Gosavianadzor"?

I found that "Gosavianadzor" can refer to the State Supervisory Commission for Flight Safety.

But I found modern usages of it too:

What are the official names (Russian and English) of the new Gosavianadzor?

And then... "Neradko Alexander." says "1997-2000: Head of the Department for State Supervision over Flight Safety of Russia's Federal Aviation Service and Federal Air Transport Service." - Is this it?

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Stalin.jpg

image:Stalin.jpg has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg

image:Molotov-Ribbentrop-Russian.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renata Akhunova was AfDed without a project tag so didn't show up on alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Russia

This is a courtesy note to inform the participants of this WikiProject of a discussion currently taking place at Talk:List of cities and towns in Russia. A suggestion has been made to remove the entities with the population of fewer than 100,000 from the list and to rename the article. Additionally, it was proposed to replace the reference (currently the official Census results) with an English-language list hosted on the http://citypopulation.de website (a discussion thread regarding the merits of that source is open at WP:RS/N#City Population). Additional input would be welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 15:28 (UTC)

I do not see any discussion (at least not later than 2006); could you pls check the link?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Found it: Talk:List of cities and towns in Russia by population--Ymblanter (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, that's indeed the one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 16:07 (UTC)

Russia making a good article

Hello,

I was just thinking if we could collaborate to re-obtain Russia's good article status. One major issue is the lack of in-line citations, the other is the size, particularly the Soviet Union section. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Citations should not be a problem, I could help with them. I am more concerned about the generally scattered information, lack of coherence and incompleteness.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

So where are you all members? I and Ymblanter may retire after working on that huge article :)! I suggest, if there is enough interest in getting it to that status, each person chooses one or more sections to work on, eg I could take the Sports section. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Two places, or two articles about the same place?

There is an article, Pechenga (railway station), Murmansk Oblast, that isn't (apparently) about a railway station at all but about some sort of administrative entity known as a "station": It has a "Russian rural locality" infobox and makes no mention of railways in the text. I thought of moving it to a more appropriate title, but I see that we also have a, much fuller, article at Pechenga (urban-type settlement), Murmansk Oblast. Are these articles essentially duplicative (so that they should be merged), or do they in fact deal with separate administrative entities (so that the existence of both is justified)? I'm afraid that my knowledge of the details of Russian political divisions is inadequate to the task of determining the correct action here. Deor (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I assume the first one is indeed a rural locality with this precise name, and the second one is an urban locality, so that they should stay what they are, but we need in any case to wait for User:Ezhiki, who undoubtedly knows what is going on.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late answer; I seem to have missed this thread. The answer to your question lies in the confusing terminology which is used in Murmansk Oblast (and several other federal subjects). A "railway station" there is not only a railway station proper, but also a type of a rural locality (on par with "village", "selo", "stanitsa", etc.). In reality, it is a small rural locality centered around the railway station, but to use it as a synonym for that railway station would not be proper. Also, this rural locality and the other Pechenga (which is larger and has urban status) are indeed separate territorial entities—the smaller one is explicitly listed as being under the jurisdiction (but not as a part of!) the larger one, the populations are reported separately for each; there are certain other peculiarities as well. (And I do realize that all this is not at all obvious from the stub which is currently in place). Anyway, the bottom line is that they are definitely not duplicates (and thus should not be merged), nor is it appropriate to rename the stub "Pechenga railway station" (however, another page could be placed under that title, one that deals specifically with the station as a part of the railroad infrastructure, although an argument can be made that this information could be a part of the article about the rural locality, to which "Pechenga railway station" would redirect). Hopefully I haven't confused you totally with this explanation! If I have, please don't hesitate to follow-up. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 23, 2013; 15:14 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Ezhiki. Could you check the geographic coordinates in the articles for correctness? It was I who added the ones in Pechenga (railway station), Murmansk Oblast, and they are based on the location of what appeared, on maps such as this, to be the local railway station. Is this the correct place? Deor (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the coordinates were correct (the railway station, both "proper" and the inhabited locality, are about five kilometers southwest of the urban-type settlement, and the station proper is only a few seconds to the west of the settlement's post office). I converted the coordinates to the dms format and also added seconds to the urban-type settlement's coordinates. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 23, 2013; 20:43 (UTC)

Translation of patronymics

An editor has requested comment at WT:MOS, which may affect the way some biographical articles within the scope of this Wikiproject are styled. The discussion is at WT:MOS#Translation of patronymics. Daicaregos (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Барин

Hello,

what is a good English translation of Барин? Or is it simply "Barin"? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The best translation would depend on the context: "landlord", "master", "noble" all might work. If none of these fits, it's possible to use barin, after explaining what it means when you use it for the first time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 23, 2013; 20:22 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni.jpg

file:Hovhannes Katchaznouni.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:FalsifiersOfHistoryCover.jpg

File:FalsifiersOfHistoryCover.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Old Novgorod dialect

Dear WikiProject Russia! I seeking dictionary and grammar from linguists about the Old Novgorodic dialect. It is possible to find in the internet? Doncsecztalk 17:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Doncsecztalk 21:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Lipkany, Cloth & Linen Street.jpg

file:Lipkany, Cloth & Linen Street.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bus Beloyar

Please take a look at the recent history of articles Bozh and Bus Beloyar. Someone new account pushes a theory thtat they are the same person, without providing scholarly references. So far the person ignores their user talk page. - Altenmann >t 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like neo-Pagan nonsense.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but please help me to defend the content. User:Vitvak ignores talk pages and just reposts their rant. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've protected the page for two weeks. Hopefully that'll facilitate further discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2013; 18:47 (UTC)
Actually, there are two pages: Bozh . - Altenmann >t 18:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

And here comes another problem: I tried and bound it virually impossible to find anything reliable about bus Beloyar. At the same time there are multitudes of bullshit books of neopaganist type. I am wondering how he page can be defended against a dedicated neopaganist, armed with references to "members of pravoslavic academy etc etc" - Altenmann >t 18:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've protected Bozh as well. As for the merits of the Bus Beloyar article, I'm afraid I'm not qualified enough to be able to sort it out on the merits of the sources alone (although "pravoslavic academy" is a no-brainer :)). Christian nonsense I can refute left and right all day long, but I never had a reason to dig into neopaganism! Anyhoo, is it at all possible to fix that article from the point of view of the study of neopaganism mythology?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2013; 19:08 (UTC)

Anji or Anzhi Makhachkala?

After undoing a copy&paste-move of FC Anzhi Makhachkala to FC Anji Makhachkala I am not sure what the correct article title is. At Talk:FC Anzhi Makhachkala#Name someone presented arguments for Anji which seem to be conclusive. --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The club must be known to UEFA under some name; this name should be the correct name of the article. I think this is Anzhi, but it is better to double-check.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

pronunciation of Sergei Lyapunov

Hello, would someone be able to add the pronunciation of Sergei Lyapunov's name to the Sergei Lyapunov article (similar to what is in Dmitri Shostakovich, for example), per this Reference Desk request? Thanks. 184.147.116.201 (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Transliteration of Shyuvr (Volga Finn bagpipe)

I'm trying to find some images and more info for shyuvr, a bagpipe played by the Volga Finns, but I'm not sure how to transliterate this. For what it's worth, the French academics write it chiabour. Can anyone find a Cyrillic spelling which returns the proper hits so I can find some references and maybe PD images? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Haid1 für Wiki.jpg

file:Haid1 für Wiki.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Dikt8e für Wiki.jpg

File:Dikt8e für Wiki.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Prosphora.jpg

File:Prosphora.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Boris Berezovsky.jpg

file:Boris Berezovsky.jpg has been nominated for deleiton -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Culture of Asia

Culture of Asia has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Culture of Asia -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Using accent marks to indicate stress

Moved here from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia)#Stress marks on Russian names in English Wikipedia.

This discussion was originally posted in the Wikipedia Classical Music project and has been moved here at the advice of an editor (see below).

There seems to have arisen a convention, in giving names in Russian Cyrillic script in English WP, of clarifying stress in words by placing accents on the Cyrillic syllables, (rather than relying on the IPA transcription, or providing an accented English version). In articles on e.g. English subjects (e.g. Churchill) or French subjects (e.g. Honoré de Balzac) no guide on accent is provided, save where this may be indicated by IPA pronunciation. These accents do not exist in normal written or printed Russian; however, Russian WP does provide guide to stressing names in the first line of the lead: thus the Russian article on Tchaikovsky, which is titled 'Чайковский, Пётр Ильич' (i.e. without stress accents), begins ' Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский....'

The English WP guidelines are quite clear: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) gives the example correctly, without stress accents:

  1. Example: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский)

However the English WP article begins:' Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (/ˈpjɔːtər ɪˈliɪtʃ tʃaɪˈkɒfski/; Russian: Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский....' (I have added the bold face to the accented vowels). And thus with virtually all other English WP articles on Russian composers and musicians (and indeed all other Russians).

This is highly misleading to English WP readers, not familiar with Cyrillic, who might wish for some reason to transcribe the name in Cyrillic and will be receving incorrect information from the articles, as these stress marks are not part of the spelling. (To be explicit, it is as if Russians were to give the orthography of Churchill's English name as 'Wínston Léonard Spéncer-Chúrchill').

I suspect this situation has come about both from English editors transcribing direct from Russian WP, and from over-zealous Russian editors of English WP seeking to export Russian WP conventions.

If we do wish to indicate where stress lies (and that seems a perfectly worthy objective if people like it), the convention should be to provide a stressed version in English (or IPA) script, and to take the stresses off the Cyrillic names. Whateverone's attitude on this question, the use of stresses on Cyrillic names in English WP is unencyclopaedic (and indeed pointless, as those who can't read Cyrllic make no sense of it, and those who do gain no information from it).

As this seems to be a virus which has infected English WP wholesale, I am at a loss as to where I can raise it where I can get some attention, so all comments would be welcome. But can I propose anyway that we include in the WP Classical Music guidelines that such stress-marks , where they are not part of the standard orthography, should not be included where names are given in foreign scripts, and that we should adhere to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia)? --Smerus (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

A few comments, in random order.
  • As a Russian speaker, I have often been helped by discovering the stress in a particular name is not where I always assumed it was.
  • Russian WP uses them extensively (but like English WP, only to show how a name is pronounced, not all the way through the text)
  • I have seen little to no evidence that anyone believes the stress marks are part of the standard spelling, apart from the umlaut in ё.
  • Stress marks are widely used throughout WP's articles on Russians, and we should not have a different policy for classical musicians than applies generally. This discussion should really be taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia). -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 21:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have nothing against stress marks - but surely in English WP they should come on English text, rather than on Cyrillic text which most English users will not be able to comprehend? I will move this discussion as you suggest to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Russia). --Smerus (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I've posted a notification of this discussion at WT:RUSSIA and recommend to move the whole thread there as well. The "naming conventions" pages deal strictly with article titles, not with how Russian text is rendered in the body of the article, and this particular page is nothing but a dormant proposal which few if any people are likely to notice. If you decide to move this thread there, feel free to overwrite my notification. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2013; 12:02 (UTC)
I think the stress marks are problematic. Since the subject is Russian there is often likely to be additional information only in Russian, so I would think that the main -- or at any rate a main -- purpose of giving the Cyrillic name is so that the person can paste it into a search box and find more info about the person (in Russian, which he can then machine-translate if he doesn't know Russian) or otherwise look it up. Add the stress marks actively interferes with this.
Re JackofOz's comments, I expect that a very low percentage of readers here know Russian, so the stresses are not helpful to them (and thus also they would have no reason not to believes the stress marks are part of the standard spelling). If the point is to guide the reader in arriving at a proper pronunciation of the the name (which is the other main reason for having the Cyrillic name, I suppose) then any stress marks should go on the English version (in addition to the IPA version, which is best for this but which many users also can't read). Herostratus (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
If Russian editors want to disambiguate accents, if you will, I think the best solution is to record the name with pronunciation. The stress marks are not going to be useful to the average reader who doesn't know how to pronounce the half-dozen variations of "I" sound in Russian. Accent is the least of pronunciation issues. Not everything that works in WP:RU transplants with the same value to WP:EN. Similarly with past Russophile-originated moves to disambiguate person names by including the patronymic instead of, say, "(actor)", "(politician)", "(musician)", etc. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, that's not entirely true. I recently took upon myself a task of removing accent marks from the articles where an IPA transcription was already available, and quickly run into opposition (and not from native Russians, mind). Whatever one's view on the value of showing stress is, that does not change the fact that a number of non-Russian editors actually find them useful, with or without IPA. On the objection that stress marks interfere with performing proper searches I would like to note that the stressed version is normally only given in the lede and an unstressed version is usually available in the infobox. As for those people who can't tell the difference between a stressed and unstressed versions, they are highly unlikely to have any use for either anyway, so the practical effects of this possible confusion are minimal.
My other concern is that the proposal basically asks for a documented exception for just one WikiProject, and I don't see how that can be justified. There is absolutely nothing special about WikiProject Classical Music that makes using stress marks unsuitable there but not elsewhere. Regardless of how these stress marks are handled, they should be handled uniformly across all articles.
Finally, for the record, I strongly oppose putting stress marks on English versions. Yes, it is occasionally done, but it's rather rare and the potential for confusing such accented letters with something like "French spelling" is, in my opinion, much higher, than using standard stress marks over Russian text.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 2, 2013; 13:47 (UTC)

I of course agree that the problem is Wikipedia wide; I only addressed myself originally to the Classical Music project because that's the area where I do most of my work here. Ezhiki is of course correct that 'Regardless of how these stress marks are handled, they should be handled uniformly across all articles' and I hope that by raising the issue at other levels as he has done that this issue can be clarified. Should someone now move the whole thread to WT:RUSSIA? --Smerus (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Ezhiki, it would seem that the accent marks are something easy to focus on as facilitating proper pronunciation, but if one knows any Russian at all, stress marks are the least of one's worries. IPA should be sufficient, and as you & others indicate, I agree we should be consistent regardless of WikiProjects. (If any useful markings were to be added, those should, IMO, be apostrophes to facilitate understanding of palatalization, but I don't support those either for WP:EN.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Smerus said: Whateverone's attitude on this question, the use of stresses on Cyrillic names in English WP is unencyclopaedic (and indeed pointless, as those who can't read Cyrllic make no sense of it, and those who do gain no information from it). That is completely wrong. You can be perfectly familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet, but still have no idea as to where the stress lies on each word. Take for example Russian people: they are perfectly familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet, but if they haven't heard the word or the name, they won't know where the stress lies, as it might be completely random. That's why Russian stress marks exist. In other words, you're saying Russians are not familiar with the Cyrillic alphabet... Azylber (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
    • No, I am saying that this is English Wikipedia, and should be organised to support English readers, not Russian readers who happen to be using it. Please read again what I have written - those who can't read Cyrillic make no sense of the stress marks on Cyrillic script - therefore these stress marks have no place in English Wikipedia.--Smerus (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Well, by that same logic those who can't read Cyrillic will make no sense of it whether it has stress marks on it or not :) Anyway, what makes you think those stress marks benefit only Russian speakers (which Azylber, by the way, is not)? If a person is looking for an article on a topic related to Russia, it's pretty probable his or her needs will include learning what the topic is called in Russian (which is why Russian version is included in the first place), as well as how it is pronounced (which is where IPA and stress marks come into play). This is perfectly encyclopedic information, in its rightful place. If one started to provide Russian names in articles about US cities, that would have been extremely unhelpful to non-Russian speakers, but in the articles related to Russia... what's the downside?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 3, 2013; 21:00 (UTC)
My vote would be to have no stress marks on the Russian Cyrillic in the English Wikipedia. People who want to know the stress can look up the name in the Russian Wikipedia; the Cyrillic is just there for reference in the English version, and accents are unhelpful for that. cwmacdougall 0:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that we should remove information from our encyclopedia, just because this information exists on another encyclopedia. If we did what you say, then our encyclopedia would be empty, since we're not allowed to add anything unless it appears somewhere else. Azylber (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
No I'm saying, like several here, that the stress marks will confuse most users of the English encyclopaedia, so either you must show more, eg IPA for Russian with stress marks as well as Cyrillic without, or you should show less, ie Cyrillic without. In some articles we are indeed showing the IPA, and that would be the right place for stress marks. In most articles it appears we are not showing IPA, in which case I would not show stress on the Cyrillic as that causes confusion. Whether to show IPA at all is another issue - useful info at the cost of looking messy? cwmacdougall 9:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you please explain how the stress marks "cause confusion", and for whom? That's one point that is routinely brought up, but never with examples. Logically, one would think that either one can read Russian (and is thus familiar with the stress marks) or one can't (in which case the presence or absence of stress marks would make no difference). Your comment implies that there are readers who can read Russian but are absolutely baffled when they see the stress marks, and, frankly, I have a difficulty with picturing this kind of audience. Could you (or someone else) please elucidate?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2013; 12:07 (UTC)
As was mentioned above, a poor speaker of Russian is liable to think the stress marks are part of the correct spelling of the Russian and include them when copying either to a document or for an online search...cwmacdougall 13:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
But why would a poor speaker of Russian want to copy it to a document of any sort? For a document of any importance doing so is just not a smart thing to do (and Wikipedia is not in business of preventing every dumb thing people can do with our articles). At any rate, one is more likely to look stupid by using, say, a noun in cases other than nominative—I've seen plenty of that, and it's a much more serious blunder than retaining the stress marks. What's more, stress marks are introduced in the first few lessons of any beginner's course of Russian together with the alphabet; learners of the language are actually more comfortable with them than without them. Russian as a second language textbooks are one place (along with various reference materials) where stress marks are extensively used.
As for the search engines, while this sentiment was valid only a few years ago, today all major search engines are capable of sorting this out pretty well. A search for "Пётр Ильич Чайковский", for example, produces pretty much the same results as the search for "Пётр Ильи́ч Чайко́вский", and while the results are not identical, the search for the stressed version actually finds some useful resources which are not found when using the unstressed version. Like with any other search, the cards may fall differently in different situations, but having the stress marks definitely is no longer a technical limitation that prevents a search from running at all...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2013; 13:39 (UTC)

With a deep sigh, I restate my case in the possibly forlorn hope that editors may not track off into answering their own versions of it. This is English Wikipedia. For Russian names, it may well be helpful to indicate the stress of the names on English spelling, and/or in IPA. It is not helpful to put it on Russian spelling, because those using English Wikipedia who are not familiar with Cyrillic characters may assume that the stress marks are part of the standard Russian spelling. It is not the case that, if one cannot read Russian, the existence of stress marks makes no difference; such users might be led to think that the orthographic spelling in Cyrillic includes the accent and might spread this misapprehension elsewhere (on the internet, in an essay, wherever) citing Wikipedia's authority. If the accent is shown in either English spelling or IPA, the accents on the Russian are superfluous, as this is English Wikipedia. I venture to suppose that Russian readers seeking the stresses would use Russian Wikipedia.

Finally I refer editors, once again, to the existing guideline in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia), which gives, as example, without stress accents:

  1. Example: Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (Russian: Пётр Ильич Чайковский)

That is, the baseline position is to use Cyrillic spellings without accents: and if Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) or other hedgehogs wish to change this, they should raise the issue to add accents there, not contest the removal of accents here. Best--Smerus (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What you cite is a failed proposal, not a guideline--Ymblanter (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
And with an equally deep sign I repeat the points I made above :)
  1. ...those using English Wikipedia who are not familiar with Cyrillic characters may assume that the stress marks are part of the standard Russian spelling.. They are equally likely to assume many other uninformed things, such as, for example, that the plural of Russian "республика" (republic) is "республик" instead of "республики", because "республик" is a part of the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" and it is, well, plural. The point is that if one is not familiar with a language, they shouldn't assume such things! There is not much we can do to help them there, nor is it our job to.
  2. ...such users might be led to think that the orthographic spelling in Cyrillic includes the accent and might spread this misapprehension elsewhere.... See above. Also, there are very few practical uses for Russian spelling (accented or not) to a person who knows no Russian. Cwmacdougall above raised a couple points, which I have addressed and which you are welcome to refer to.
  3. ...citing Wikipedia's authority.... A friend of mine, who is a professor at the university, automatically lowers the grade of any paper one notch if the student cites Wikipedia in his or her work (although, in all fairness, he does it whenever a student uses any kind of tertiary source to support anything more than a definition of a term). Wikipedia per se is not an authority on anything; all our information is supposed to be based on reliable sources. The only serious problem with the stress marks Wikipedia has is that the stressed versions are rarely sourced to anything, and that's not a problem that can be resolved by removing stresses (which, for place names at least, are often added by locals and usually are fairly accurate).
  4. If the accent is shown in either English spelling or IPA, the accents on the Russian are superfluous.... Next time you find yourself in a major bookstore, go to the Languages section and pull as many books on the Russian language as you can find. Then count how many of those books explain the use of accents to show stress, and how many explain IPA. I'll bet you all the buttons on the shirt I'm currently wearing (and this is coming from someone who believes that learning IPA should be mandatory in studies of any language) that the IPA group is going to be in a sad minority. Removing stress marks would be unhelpful to a much wider audience than those few people you plan to benefit (i.e., those who think it's wise to copy-paste words in a language they can't read to an essay and then to release that essay into the world).
  5. Finally I refer editors, once again, to the existing guideline in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia)...'. Yaroslav above is correct—the page you are linking to is a dormant proposal, and an incomplete one at that (I should know, I wrote it :)). It is not a standing guideline, even though in other aspects it describes the existing practices pretty accurately.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2013; 18:40 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English who reads Russian well, I entirely agree with Ezhiki, and I think this is a very unfortunate proposal. The inability to predict stress in proper names is one of the notorious features of Russian; even native speakers are often unsure. I myself very frequently have recourse to Wikipedia to find the stress, and I routinely add it when it is not available. I do not see why I should have to find the link to the Russian article (if one exists, which is not always the case) in hopes of finding the stress (which is frequently not marked in the Russian article). As for the suggestion that stress should be marked via an IPA transcription, that is a counsel of perfection in an imperfect world. Creating an IPA transcription is a great deal more bother than adding accents, and I for one would not do it. The net effect of the proposal would be to diminish information with no net gain except for the putative lessening of confusion in hypothetical non-Russian-speakers who nevertheless hypothetically want to google a Russian name to get results they cannot read. I vote against, strongly. Languagehat (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Ezhiki and Languagehat and I give this proposal the strongest possible oppose. Azylber (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, I change my view and vote against. Languagehat's penultimate sentence summarises the issue well. cwmacdougall 2:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not simply a Russian language problem. It's a problem for any language using Cyrillic alphabets, and there are many. For example, how would a Russian speaking person attempt to pronounce this Ukrainian term: "корма для тварин"? USchick (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: To explain pronunciation, we use pron.: /ˈpjɔːtər ɪˈliɪtʃ tʃaɪˈkɒfski/. Surely there are other languages where stress is an issue, so adding stress: would alert the reader in a similar way. USchick (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment It may be helpful to provide a transliteration to aid in pronunciation versus the usual Romanized/anglicized name which includes stress/accent and palatalization marks, not on the original Cyrillic, since this is WP:EN. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I remind you of what Emerson said about a foolish consistency (i.e., it is best to treat a Russian language problem as a Russian language problem and not try to make one size fit all) and I direct your attention to my earlier response to a similar proposal: "Creating an IPA transcription is a great deal more bother than adding accents, and I for one would not do it." I repeat that this is a destructive solution to a non-problem. Languagehat (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Botik of Peter the Great

I'm hoping to take the article to FAC soon and I was wondering if anybody might be able to assist me with it. Assistance in any part of the article is useful, but I'm really looking for a couple of things. The Soviet Era and Post-Soviet Era sections need expansion, I would like to find information on the stamp depicting the boat. It would also be useful to get English translations of the current Russian sources. Ryan Vesey 20:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

International Resistance Day?

Can anybody please help with this query at the Humanities Refdesk? Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Siege of Kazan (1552)

Siege of Kazan (1552) has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Siege of Kazan (1552) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Chechen Wikipedia: Articles?

It may be embarrassing but there is a news article about the Chechen Wikipedia from Stolica Plus in Grozny:

Does this have sufficient material to add to a new article on the Chechen Wikipedia or a Wikipedia-related article? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Could be sufficient as a stub. There were recently some important developments, see also here.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Did Georgia and/or Ukraine leave the Interstate Aviation Committee?

The website of the Interstate Aviation Committee still says Ukraine and Georgia are members of the IAC, even though Georgia left the CIS, and an editor said in his edits that both Georgia and Ukraine left the IAC.

Because of WP:V Wikipedia still has to say Georgia and Ukraine are part of the IAC unless one can find (a) source(s) explicitly saying that Georgia and Ukraine left the IAC. Does anyone have knowledge of such sources?

Please see the relevant discussion at Talk:Interstate_Aviation_Committee#Being_correct

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Failed to find such sources. This seems to be very controversial. On the one hand, South Airlines Flight 8971 crash is not under investigation by IAC. On the other hand, here (2011/12/3) we read: Mikhail Saakashvili could withdraw from the CIS, but the Georgian aviation professionals continue to communicate with the IAC. Sealle (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
    • We could add the information from the mail.ru source if it's a Wikipedia reliable source, to clarify Georgia's role. We should still say Georgia is a member of the IAC. As for South Airlines, do we know which agency is investigating it? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Concerning Georgia — I have found the original summary of the interview Mrs. Anodina gave to the Russian TV channel Rossiya 1 at its own website vesti.ru. As for the Donetsk disaster — Ukrainian National Bureau for Air Accidents Investigations is to investigate the crash. Here it is called as national bureau for investigation of aviation accidents and incidents with civilian aircraft. Sealle (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Awesome! What we should do is add sourced information about Georgia, and then explain that Ukraine has its own aircraft investigation agency. So readers can see that Ukraine and Georgia are members of the IAC, but that each country has its own role in the organization. As for Ukraine's investigation agency, does it have its own website? If so I can write up a stub about it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There are new comments at Talk:Interstate Aviation Committee WhisperToMe (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yuri Alexandrov.jpg

image:Yuri Alexandrov.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Rkka.jpg

file:Rkka.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Urals blank map.png

File:Urals blank map.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Tvardovskij.jpg

image:Tvardovskij.jpg has been nominated for deletino -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Krolewiecherb.PNG

File:Krolewiecherb.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Bilibin - Tsarevna Swan-Bird.jpg

File:Bilibin - Tsarevna Swan-Bird.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This one is PD but available on Commons.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Len-fire.jpg

File:Len-fire.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I attempted to use TinEye to search for the image source, but unfortunately no results were found. Ryan Vesey 17:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As it's used in Hero City, perhaps a replacement can be found to show heroism in Leningrad? -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That would be the best idea, there are likely Commons pictures uploaded from the official Russian archives. I did search for B&W photos of burning buildings, fires, etc. in Leningrad and scrolling until I got dizzy didn't turn up this particular picture. (Similar to TinEye, Google image search only turned up clones.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential superpowers: Russia

Hello editors. Some of you could help in this discussion that takes place here: [11] It is about the condition of Russia as emerging superpower. Good contributions! Hallel (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Hovhannes Katchaznouni.jpg

File:Hovhannes Katchaznouni.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Vazgen Sargsyan bw.jpg

File:Vazgen Sargsyan bw.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Developing Lenkom, anybody?!

The stub doesn't even mention Mark Zakharov. Ladies and gentlemen, let me repeat: I'm talking of the LENKOM. Yes, Lenkom, that very Lenkom. I'm wondering what all the project participants have been busy for all those years with that prevented them from doing the page. Shockfully yours, Ukrained2012 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Since most of this unregistered user’s activity is related to languages of Russia, I do not see a better place to post this notice.

Initially s/he was active as 99.102.158.150 (talk · contribs) and attracted much criticism about his/her incompetent edits, and proved to be completely uncollaborative. Today apparently the same person, now as 64.134.48.119 (talk · contribs), injected a false information about inclusion of Кхъу to Unicode into the article Cyrillic script in Unicode. Note that U+0994 ঔ BENGALI LETTER AU is an unrelated letter from Bengali alphabet.

Although extent of the problem is not especially large, the IP’s edits are even more dangerous than an outright vandalism because easily can be identified as competent edits even by experienced users. IMHO users watching Cyrillic script-related articles should be aware of this problem. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to check whether their other edit is correct?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure, and the state does not match, but 50.73.253.49 (talk · contribs) demonstrates an interest to the same topic and shows a similar editing pattern. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly the same person. A nonsense(?) word “Alexazulian”, as in [12][13], helps to identify him/her reliably. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Vasily Kuptsov

Hello folks. While I can read Romance languages and Germanic languages adequately enough to add refs and WP:ELs, I really don't have the slightest clue how to improve this article with Russian language refs and ELs. Aiuto me/hilf mich/aidez-moi. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Svirel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svirel Svirel is a common Slavic name for initially wind instrument (e. g. similar to a recorder) and NOT RUSSIAN ONLY. So author should correct this explanation.--93.103.137.113 (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Krasin ice.PNG

File:Krasin ice.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 02:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent dramatic photograph of Soviet icebreaker Krasin by Dimitri Debadov, used in several articles. I added author and his dates. Could someone familiar with Russian law check whether this could possibly be PD? At first glance I would think not. Dankarl (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not. We need the fair use rationale.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
It seems unlikely to pass, especially since there are numerous images on Commons. Most of these are from Germany in the 1950s but File:Ledokol krasin.jpg] and File:1976. Ледокол Красин.jpg look like they date from before the ship was modernized. Could you check if they are legitimately free content and if they are or can be dated? If so they may be appropriate replacements and if not we may have an argument to save the Debadov photo.Dankarl (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The postal stamp is fine. The photo is highly doubtful (it says the author is unknown), but I do not have enough energy to nominate it for deletion and arguing my cause.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of Articles on Places

A discussion has begun on the Malakhovka disambiguation talk page that is of more general interest. The discussion relates to whether the disambiguation page for the name should start with calling it an "Urban-type settlement", when while that is the legal status it certainly does not describe the place, or whether it is better to start with a sourced good description "a suburb of Moscow with historic dachas" and later mention its legal status. I show the first two comments below: cwmacdougall 22:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to emphasize once again that set index articles on Russian inhabited localities exist first and foremost to collect the information on the legal status, administrative jurisdiction, and location of such places. Whatever one's stance on how "misleading" the legal status of a place might be, the fact remains that this status is what it is, and is so documented. Poetic descriptions based on a single source belong in the body of the articles being linked to, not here. Adding them here is just as inappropriate as adding a short summary on each place's economy or demographics—it's possible, but not what the purpose of these pages is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 11, 2013; 18:10 (UTC)
Nonsense. Encyclopaedia articles exist to inform and give a feel of interesting places. They should do so, rather than be obsessed with trivial misleading formalities. cwmacdougall 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
It's just a case of using a common usage term understood by all readers, versus a specialized term that would understood by few. The purpose of the disambiguation page is to let the reader quickly find the article they are looking for. Using common language accomplishes this purpose. The specialized term should also be included, but it is of interest to far fewer readers and so should be less prominent, both on the disambiguation page and in the article text. (Coincidentally, I love the suggestion that the term "suburb" should count as poetic. "Suburbs of the soul" does have a better ring to it than "urban-type settlements of the soul", I suppose.) - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
First, a point both commenters seem to have missed. Malakhovka is neither an article nor a disambiguation page. It is a set index article, the purpose of which is to list items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. Set indices have both navigational and informational aspects, and as far as informational aspects go, those are guided by the purpose for which these pages are created. The purpose of set indices on Russian inhabited localities is to provide information on legal status, administrative jurisdiction, and location of places. With rare exceptions, including anything else simply dilutes that purpose. Note that every single page in Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia adheres to this format. The set indices are not intended to serve as brief summaries of the articles the entries link to; that's counter to both their purpose and to the purpose of set index pages in general.
Another hard-to-miss thing is that characterizing the legal status of a place as "certainly not describing the place accurately" is original research at best and horrible bias at worst. It's not the Wikipedians' right to dismiss established legal classification out of hand based on personal feelings alone; such classification is verifiable encyclopedic information which should always be included. Same cannot be said about the description cwmacdougall insists on including. If one were to make a search for "Malakhovka, Moscow" in Google Books, for example, all sorts of descriptions would come up, many of which even contradict one another. Malakhovka is referred to as a "dacha hamlet", a "provincial town", "eastern outskirts of Moscow", a "village", an "estate", and that's just on the first page of the results! Yet only one of these descriptions is picked out of the whole batch, it's based on no identifiable criteria whatsoever, and it's ambiguous as hell. It's like insisting on calling a ship a "sailing boat" on a page which was created to list them by specific type, because someone somewhere (and not in a book dedicated to ships) referred to it as such!
Cwmacdougall is right about one thing, however. Our articles do indeed "exist to inform and give a feel of interesting places" (although actually it's "notable", not necessarily "interesting"). And this is why we have Malakhovka, Moscow Oblast, which, while including the legal definition for the record, mainly emphasizes general interest information using common language. And this is exactly right—that's what articles are for. Set indices serve an altogether different purpose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2013; 13:25 (UTC)
And who and where and why did someone decide it required a "set index" page rather than a disambiguation page? Surely the former is of minor importance and the latter of great importance. This goes to the heart of the problem, the obsession of some people with these uninteresting legal categories, rather than the much more interesting categories that reflect common usage. Yes this does require some judgement, but that is unavoidable in writing an encyclopaedia article; sources can be found for almost any odd view and some judgement has to be used. Using the legal category of "urban-type settlement" just as much reflects a judgement, and a mistaken one at that. In fact ANY of the descriptions you found - "dacha hamlet", a "provincial town", "eastern outskirts of Moscow", a "village", an "estate" - would better reflect common usage than "urban-type settlement". cwmacdougall 15:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
You do realize that if this were to become a disambiguation page, it would have been stripped of all descriptors, legal and poetic alike? Disambiguation pages are not supposed to include any descriptions for populated places other than country; see WP:MOSDAB#Places. Set indices are used precisely because such stripped-out pages are not very helpful once you have a list of more than just a handful of places; and they are even less helpful when all such places are relatively obscure and are in the same country.
On your other statement (that using "urban-type settlement" somehow reflects a judgement), you couldn't be more wrong. It represents a solid, unambiguous, verifiable fact, and whether you "like" it or agree with it is extremely irrelevant. And this statement of yours does indeed go to the heart of the problem—you seem to be confusing what the place is with how it is described (and described in passing at that). The former is objective, while the latter is subjective (and highly so, as the plethora of descriptions I found would illustrate). Set indices exist to list objective criteria, not subjective ones. You may disagree with how the objective criteria are defined all you want, but it won't make the subjective ones any more suitable to tell places apart. Subjective criteria are usually too numerous to list anyway, often contradict one another, and more often than not are verifiable only to the sources which are not on the subject but rather simply mention it in a context dealing with something else entirely. How can you not see the difference? Yes, it's true that avoiding using judgement is not always possible, but when it is possible (in this case by using a formal designation), it should be avoided. Systemic bias in the English Wikipedia is bad enough as it is; there is no need to exacerbate it by cherry-picking vaguely relevant and highly inaccurate descriptions which one just happens to favor.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 12, 2013; 16:14 (UTC)
I don't see where your link says we are prohibited from having useful information on a disambiguation page. It says to keep it short, and that it might be sufficient to have just the location, but not that no additional information may be provided. In any case, I don't see why priority should be given to the description some bureaucrat came up with, rather than what an English speaker would use to describe the place in Plain English. cwmacdougall 20:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, and I want to again point to the issue of interpretability. Almost no English speaker is going to know what "urban-type settlement" means. In Russian, the term is still a bit of a bureaucratic mouthful, but it is at least readily intelligible because it includes the term "посёлок". "Посёлок" is a general usage colloquial term roughly meaning "town" or "community", and is used to describe both suburbs and rural towns. However, the powers that be chose to translate посёлок into English as "settlement", which does not mean either suburb or rural town. Rather, that term is generally used to describe either small villages or recent / informal occupations by settlers (e.g., [14]). "Suburb", on the other hand, implies a smaller community adjacent to a major city, and usually one that is in part a bedroom community for that city. Malakhovka is literally and unambiguously that, independent of the legalese term involved. - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 21:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, for one, the primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to explain what unfamiliar terms mean; that's why we have wikilinking. Then, it's strange to complain about unfamiliar terms on a page which was primarily designed as a holding place for legal definitions. I don't know most of the terms used in the list of baryons, for example; it doesn't give me a right to demand re-writing it using only the terms found in Merriam-Webster!
What's more, there is no requirement to use these terms all the time every time. Yes, in articles they are introduced in the lede and in the infobox because they are a part of the definition of a place, are objective and unambiguous, and some readers actually are looking for them. Yes, they are included in the set indices because that's what those pages were designed for. But in the article's body it's perfectly OK to use more relaxed terms like "suburb", "community", or whatever else other authors used in their writing. At any rate, you can't declare a place to be "literally and unambiguously" something that you yourself defined and then found support in tangentially related sources; that's a textbook example of original research and synthesis. A definition of a place should be sourced to a document dealing with definitions, not to a perfunctory description in a book. Descriptions can be used later in those parts where the precise definition is of little importance.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2013; 14:24 (UTC)
DarwinPeacock raises an important point about poor translation being part of the problem: 'the powers that be chose to translate посёлок into English as "settlement" '. I think we are the powers that be - the Russian Government has no right to chose how words are translated into English - and yes my objection, while still there, would be reduced with a better translation (and dare I say it, it would be helpful if non-native speakers were more modest in insisting on their preferred translations). Certainly "urban-type settlement" is not remotely an accurate Plain English description of Malakhovka - it is neither urban nor a settlement - and therefore it is wrong to start with that in any article on the place, though there may be some utility in mentioning that badly translated official category later in articles... cwmacdougall 2:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What makes you think that Malakhovka is neither urban nor settlement? Have you ever been there to survey?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I know the placed well, so yes I can confirm it is neither urban nor a settlement as English speakers understand those words. But note that for the articles I am relying third party research with proper citations, rather than my own observations. cwmacdougall 19:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
What I fail to see how a citation can be "proper" when it links to a source which is dealing primarily with unrelated aspects of a topic and when multiple other similar sources directly contradict it. No place can be a "town", a "settlement", a "suburb", a "hamlet", and an "estate" all at the same time, yet each such statement can be supported with a source. However, once you understand this is due to the fact that all of those sources merely contain informal descriptions rather than the actual definition, everything falls into place. Using the legal definition first and tying the informal descriptions to it later is the only way to resolve the contradictions and to avoid confusion for the readers who genuinely want to know about the legal status, without compromising understanding for everyone else. Imagine how unhelpful a page listing a "historical suburb with dachas", a "quaint little village in Central Russia", a "dilapidated coal-mining settlement", and a "dying rural community near Roslavl" would be if we only used wording cherry-picked from random descriptions we stumbled upon in books about somewhat related subjects! The purpose of set indices is both informational and navigational, and it's hard to navigate anything when subjective descriptions is all one has to work with or are presented as primary. You'll end up with pages which are neither helpful, nor accurate, nor appropriate, and which create more ambiguity than they resolve.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2013; 14:24 (UTC)
If the legal definition were meaningful or interesting to very many people you would be right, but in this case it simply isn't. We have no choice but to try to use the most representative sourced description that is Plain English. cwmacdougall 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no single plain English description either. I have been to Malakhovka several times as well. What is it in plain English? A town? A suburb (of what? Of Moscow? of Lyubertsy? of Ramenskoye?)? A dacha village?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Cw, such an arrogant statement is simply mind-boggling. Just because you don't find something interesting doesn't mean no else does. I know a number of people who are interested in just these legal bits and could not care less about the "historic dachas"—should I now start insisting on removing them? No, of course! Few people have interest in this, this, or this as well, should they all go? And Yaroslav is right in his comment as well—what are the criteria you propose we should use to select "the most representative description"? So far the only thing you've offered are your personal preferences, and I'm sorry, those won't do. The source you are using doesn't even say what you purport it says, it's all conjecture and synthesis. When multiple descriptive sources can't be reconciled, the legal definition is the safest bet when one needs a one-line definition. Everything else can be explained in the meat of the article. Be reasonable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2013; 17:42 (UTC)
You be reasonable. Any of the sourced definitions you cited would be better than "urban-type settlement". I didn't say to remove that definition, just that it is much less important or interesting for most users than a more representative definition. cwmacdougall 20:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I am reasonable. Honestly, what do you think is a smarter choice: using the objective definition from the primary source (which is unambiguously supported by a plethora of secondary sources which are directly on the subject), or using a subjective definition from a random book (which is only indirectly on the subject), which is contradicted by a bunch of other subjective definitions in other random books? What's more, no one is arguing against relaxing the language in the body of the articles once the subject is identified, but such language does not belong in places where a formal definition is expected (such as infoboxes or set index pages). You dislike such definitions and find them boring, yes, I get that much, but it does not mean they are not encyclopedic or that there is anything wrong with including them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 16, 2013; 19:32 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by "set index articles on Russian inhabited localities exist first and foremost to collect the information on the legal status, administrative jurisdiction, and location of such places." That's an inventory, not encyclopedic content. If I want to look up administrative divisions I can go to BGN or (better) an official Russian web site. Our purpose here is not to be an English language mirror of a Russian governmental primary sources. We can and should certainly reflect such information but that is not our primary "purpose" here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course collecting such information is not the primary purpose of Wikipedia, but, as you said, we can and should certainly reflect it. Set indices are simply one of the tools used to do just that. As a concept, set indices exist to provide lists of entities of the same type sharing the same name; the exact approach to implementation details depends on the WikiProject developing them. If you look at Category:Set indices, you'll see that they all exist to include the basic primary aspects of the subject they cover. Set indices are just another tool in the toolbox, one that exists for a particular purpose (information and navigation, as opposed to disambiguation pages, which are purely navigational, and to articles, which are purely informational). Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 17, 2013; 13:19 (UTC)
I think it answers the question very well. Azylber (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Helpful to have the link to "Set Indices", thanks. But for the index to the set of places named "Malakhovka", the issue is what is the most useful information to provide? My argument is that it should be something that an English speaker would use on seeing the place, i.e. definitely not "urban-type settlement", but rather a sourced Plain English description. cwmacdougall 20:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the category with the set indices serves as a good illustration that the most useful information to provide about an entity is its primary characteristics. A place can be described as a million different (and contradictory) things depending on context, but its definition, jurisdiction, and location are very stable. Returning to my hypothetical example about a set index listing a "historical suburb with dachas", a "quaint little village in Central Russia", a "dilapidated coal-mining settlement", and a "dying rural community near Roslavl"—do you honestly believe this would more helpful to a reader (who, based on his or her experience with thousands other set indices, expects to see something more specific) than a set of primary characteristics? And if the descriptions contradict one another, how are you going to pick one? "Urban-type settlement" is a very commonly used term in books about Soviet and post-Soviet administrative divisions and geography, hence it is the most appropriate term of choice to use when describing primary characteristics.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 22, 2013; 19:35 (UTC)
I want to also bring up another point. While the fact that Malakhovka counts as an "urban-type settlement" is easily verifiable, what exactly this term says about Malakhovka is not easy to determine. There is no single criteria for what counts as such a settlement in Russia. It is a designation decided upon by each regional government (federal subject) according to its own rules. I could not determine whether Moscow Oblast has any exact criteria it follows in deciding on this designation. If it does, they don't appear to be on Wikipedia. All of this makes me wonder, what exactly it is that the reader learns by finding out that Malakhovka is an "urban-type settlement"? - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 22:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is the central government who decides but this is not important. This is the same situation as with the towns: It is often difficult to say what it a town and what is not, but still we recognize the town status as an important feature. Even if we go to the Middle Ages, back then a town (in Europe) was a settlement which got the Magdeburg rights charter. Was it arbitrary? Yes, to some extent. Was it important? Sure.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason the Magdeburg charter was important is that it changed the entire legal makeup of the town, from property ownership rights to political structure. So while the designation was arbitrary, its effects were clear and important. Are there any important effects to getting the urban-type settlement designation? (And it's the oblast that decides: see here.) - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 18:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
DP is right, it's no longer decided by the central government. The criteria for what constitutes an urban-type settlement are set by each federal subject independently, although for historical reasons these criteria still have a lot in common. It's not unlike the definition of a "city" in the United States, which varies from state to state. Now, does this definition have any meaning? Of course it does, otherwise why would anybody bother with it? In Moscow Oblast in particular, this designation means that the place has a population of at least three thousand and that it possesses operational industrial enterprises, or has a recognized potential for industrial growth. Furthermore, the local self-government in the urban localities normally has more power than a rural locality would; there are economic incentives which apply to urban localities but not rural, and vice versa. Is all that terribly important to know? No. But neither is anything else. It's the combination of such bits of data that makes an article valuable; chopping off or dumbing down certain parts isn't adding any value at all.
And of course all these criteria should be covered in Wikipedia; I couldn't agree with that more. In fact, doing just that is already on my to-do list :) When I eventually return to working on the "administrative divisions of..." series, describing such criteria will be one of the first things to take care of. In other words, just because something is not yet covered by Wikipedia doesn't mean it doesn't exist, is not useful, or that all references to it should be removed! This is especially true about the subjects with scarce coverage in English; I point you all again to this essay.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 22, 2013; 19:35 (UTC)
I think we all agree that the official designation should be mentioned in articles about places. The disagreement is over its prominence; DP and I are arguing that a Plain English description is more important and should come first. cwmacdougall 8:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the plain English description that you mention is important, and it should come first in the article about the place, but not in an index. And this is an index, not an article. Azylber (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If you agree it's more important and should come first, then why not first in the index too? cwmacdougall 12:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
On Ezhiki's above, I would argue that since "urban type settlement" means one thing in English (not quite sure what, suburban? why not just "urban"?) as opposed to something specific translated from Russian and specific to Russia administrative divisions, then insisting on using the English term in its related-to-Russia meaning, can also be taken as systemic bias. Another would be those Russian editors who have insisted on using the patronymic to disambiguate biography articles instead of suffixing " (profession)". Short version, not leading with administrative stuff is not an issue of systemic bias. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
"Urban-type settlement" is the term of choice used in the English-language literature when describing the concept known in Russian as "посёлок городского типа". That is to say, it's prevalent in the English-language sources on the subject of geography or administrative divisions of Russia. In works on any other subject this distinction is usually unimportant, so other, more generic, more vague, and more colloquial terms are used (I've seen anything from "city" to "settlement" to "suburb" to "hamlet" to "urban village"). With Malakhovka, "urban-type settlement" is the primary translation of the term defining what the place is, as can easily be proven either by using primary sources and the dictionary or by using the secondary sources on the subject of geography/administrative divisions. A "city", "settlement", "suburb", or what not is what the place is arbitrarily described as; something which can be supported by various secondary sources which are not on the subject of geography/administrative divisions and using which makes it impossible to reconcile the oft-contradicting messages such sources send. The Wikipedia article on Malakhovka is first and foremost an article about a populated place, hence using the terminology preferred by the sources on geography is the most logical approach. Choosing a random book on a random subject which simply happens to mention the place in passing and using that mention as the definition, on the other hand, just makes no sense at all. "A suburb of Moscow" would be an acceptable description to use in an article about dachas in Moscow and its vicinity, but Malakhovka is not such an article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 19:54 (UTC)
Just to clarify, we're talking about the wording in both the index entry and the Malakhovka article. I am still not sure what exactly these index pages do. How would a reader get to the index page? If it would generally be via a wikilink from specialized pages that deal with these legal terms (e.g., "List of urban-type settlements in Russia"), then I think it would make sense to have the legal designation come first. But if it functions more like a disambiguation page for people looking for a particular Malakhovka, then I think the plain English definition needs to come first, as it makes it easier for a non-specialist reader to realize which Malakhovka they are looking for. The difference between interesting legal detail and confusing legalese jargon is largely one of context. If a page is dealing with political divisions in Russia, then "urban-type settlement" should go first, because it would tell a lot to a likely reader of that article. If it is just dealing with the town, then plain english "suburb" need to go first, and specialist language goes into a separate section where it is given context and explanation. (And Vecrumba: I think few English speakers would call Malakhovka "urban." It's small, mostly filled with single family homes, and a large portion of the population commutes to Moscow. Fits the colloquial usage of "suburb" quite well.) - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 06:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
How would a reader get to the index page? That we don't know. Readers can reach our articles in many unpredictable ways. The best we can do is to provide a structure and be consistent. Our navigational aides include categories, navigational templates, redirects, disambiguation pages, set indices, etc. Each group has a certain purpose, and once a reader understands it, navigating Wikipedia becomes a lot easier regardless of how and where any given search lands him. Set indices are not meant to replace disambiguation pages, but nor they are meant to serve as a place where anything and everything can be dumped. WP:SIA clarifies that a set index is fundamentally a type of a list article, and lists' metadata don't usually consist of a collection of random "interesting" facts from the articles being linked to; instead, they follow a certain structure, usually covering the primary attributes of the entities.
[P]lain English definition... makes it easier for a non-specialist reader to realize which Malakhovka they are looking for. Not really. I refer you back to my hypothetical set index listing a "historical suburb with dachas", a "quaint little village in Central Russia", a "dilapidated coal-mining settlement", and a "dying rural community near Roslavl". Plain English? You betcha! Sourced? They'd better be! Makes it easier to realize which Malakhovka readers are looking for? Not so much. Note also that the official designation is only one of the three pieces the sets on Russian populated places normally include, with the other two being location (geographic coordinates) and jurisdiction. Independently, none of these pieces addresses the needs of all readers, but together they cover the vast majority of the situations. Adding random bits arbitrarily picked from tangentially related sources is both confusing and redundant.
...confusing legalese jargon... But what's so confusing about "urban-type settlement"? The general meaning of the term itself is crystal clear, even to those unfamiliar with the exact definition. One wouldn't really expect to only see familiar terms in an article about a foreign country, and including basic legal information (or links to definitions) in the leads of articles about populated places is a common practice. To me, county town and unitary authority also sounds like "legalese jargon", but it doesn't mean it needs to be purged from the lead of Nottingham. I may not understand what exactly these terms mean without looking them up, but I can get the gist of it.
I think few English speakers would call Malakhovka "urban". Cwmacdougall is saying the same thing, but the thing is (no offense), nobody cares what you (or I) think. The only thing we care about is what the sources say, and only the sources on the subject of the article matter. Primary sources say it's urban. Secondary sources on the subject say it's urban. And the secondary sources which are not on the subject don't exactly say the place "is not urban". They are simply using careless colloquialisms because the material they cover is not about geography/administrative divisions but about something else entirely. If you find a secondary source on the subject which says something like "based on such and such research, Malakhovka can't be considered urban, even though the government classifies it as such", then you'll have a case. Until then, it's all synthesis. I'm surprised I even have to explain this so thoroughly and so many times!
Fits the colloquial usage of "suburb" quite well. This brings me back to systemic bias, which is exactly what editors are doing when they assign colloquial meanings from their cultural background to articles on global subjects. Even in the English-speaking countries there is a different perception of what a suburb is, and it's a really bad idea to use the term to describe a place not described as such by relevant sources. Same goes for "urban". Just because one has a certain idea of what an "urban" place should be like does not mean it is shared by everyone else throughout the world. This is systemic bias as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 26, 2013; 19:54 (UTC)
If you type "Malakhovka" into Wikipedia you get the "set-index" page we are talking about first, so it is quite likely that identifying quickly which one is the crucial factor. Perhaps it is possible that a Russian speaker would describe it as "gorodskova", don't know, but no Enlgish speaker would describe it as "urban"; I don't think you have found English language sources calling it "urban", but we have found at least one calling it "suburban". I'm not aware of "suburban" being used very differently by English speakers in different places; indeed, I think the meaning is more universal than most English words. cwmacdougall 23:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, as CW says, "suburban" has a rather exact definition. The Merriam Webster entity contains: 1 a : an outlying part of a city or town. b : a smaller community adjacent to or within commuting distance of a city. c plural : the residential area on the outskirts of a city or large town. 2 plural : the near vicinity : environs [15]. The fact that Malakhovka fits this definition is patently obvious and does not require any more cites than are already present on the page: it's within commuting distance of Moscow, and it's smaller than Moscow (please see WP:BLUE). As I already pointed out above, however, the English word settlement means something quite different from its legal usage here. The entirety of the relevant part of the M-W definition reads: a : occupation by settlers. b : a place or region newly settled. c : a small village . So, unless the reader goes on to read up about the specialized term, he will be left with an impression that Malakhovka is either far less permanent, far newer or far smaller than it is. This is why, on the main Malakhovka page, (a) the word suburb is a more accurate description for a non-specialist reader, and so should go first; and (b) the term urban-type settlement is confusing outside the technical context, and so should be used within the specialized section on administrative status, where it can be given proper context and explanation. - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 21:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
By the same logic, Stamford, Connecticut is a suburb of New York City. The article, however, starts by stating that this is a city in Fairfield County, Connecticut, and does not relegate this info into the technical section. I would be fine with mentioning in the end of the lede that Malakhovka belongs to the Greater Moscow area, but I would definitely not by fine by removing the official status from the lede (since in reality it is a big deal) and replacing it with an inaccurate statement that Malakhovka is a suburb of Moscow. (Is it a suburb of Zhukovsky as well?)--Ymblanter (talk) 21:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
No, Stamford is not a suburb of New York City, it is a small city or a town near New York. This is clear from its history, size, and architecture, and I think this is clear to most or all native English speakers; to be blunt, are you a native English speaker? As for Zhukovsky, yes there is a weak case for saying Malakhovka is a suburb of that too, but usually English speakers only say a place is a suburb of one city, the largest one nearby... cwmacdougall 21:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry to say, I fail to see the difference in this context between Malakhovka and Stamford, or, for that matter, between Zhukovsky (or Mytishchi) and Stamford.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
OK, Stamford has over 120,000 people, it has buildings of 39 stories, it has a significant history over several hundred years, and that history was independent of New York until recently. Malakhovka has 24,000 people and nearly all its buildings are one or two stories. Its history largely began with the railway to Moscow, with Moscovites building summer homes. Stamford is a small city or town; Malakhovka is a suburb. The general point is that words like city, town, suburb, and urban have fairly clear meanings to English speakers, and those Plain English meanings should start the article. cwmacdougall 22:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
My conclusion is that you are pushing for smth which is systemically biased towards American (not even English-speaking, it would fail for instance for the UK) POV. Malakhovka does have more than two-storey houses (every urban-type settlement in Russia has), and btw Stamford has 90% of its houses which are one- or two-floor. If you take Mytishchi it existed independently of Moscow for 400 years, though now in your terms it qualifies as a suburb. You just try to describe in what you call plain English reality which can not be described in these "plain English" terms, same way as say postulates of Buddhism just can not be described with the ecclesiastical terms of Christianity. Please just accept that Russia is different from the US, and things would become much simpler and more precise.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
English is English, whether spoken in US and UK or in Russia, and we are talking about the English language. When speaking Russian you are welcome to say "gorodskova" if you think it right, but not "urban" in English. The only significant difference between US and UK practice that I'm aware of relates to "Cathedral Cities", which are often not "cities" in the normal sense, so Englishmen often add "Cathedral" to be clear. But "urban" and "suburban" have the same meanings as far as I am aware. Yes Malakhovka had an existence before trains, most places do, but it's not very important to its history or present, not in the way Stamford's prior history matters. cwmacdougall 11:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because you happen to think that "urban" and "suburban" have the same meanings doesn't mean everybody speaking English does. One quick look at urban area and suburb is enough to debunk your view as a gross oversimplification that it is. What's more, not a single source exists to explicitly state that Malakhovka is "not urban", and every argument you have so far presented revolves around your personal interpretation of the dictionary definitions of the terms used as a tertiary characteristic or for convenience sake. Just because a source mentions on the margins that Malakhovka is a suburb does not mean we should start building a whole set of conjectures around it! Take a deep breath and see reason already. Russia is not the US and to apply the same criteria is silly at best, disruptive at worst, and biased in any case.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2013; 18:36 (UTC)

I don't think '"urban" and "suburban" have the same meanings'; that is the whole point. I don't know Russian well enough to know if Malakhovka is "Gorodskova", but I do know English well enough to know it's not "urban". You imply that an English speaker in Russia would apply different criteria from that applied in the US; perhaps, but if so what do you think the difference is? As far as I'm aware the dividing line between "urban" and "suburban" is the same for English speakers from all countries in all countries they view... cwmacdougall 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, Ezhiki, what exactly do you mean by "personal interpretation" of the dictionary definitions? The definitions I cited above are unambiguous and concise, and come from one of the most authoritative sources on the English language. They clearly state that, in standard English usage, "suburb" refers to a smaller community either on the periphery of a city or just outside its boundary. Since both the size and geographical location of Malakhovka are immediately verifiable, using "suburb" as a common language English description does not require a reference. What exactly is the aspect of this definition that makes it not apply in Russia? - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 02:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I already mentioned the example of Stamford but in this case for whatever reason you guys do not want to follow standard dictionary definitions and call it a suburb.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
And I already explained that Stamford for reasons of history, size, and architecture is a city close to New York, not a suburb of New York. cwmacdougall 9:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I may even agree with you, but I suggest we do not hold double standards. If we stick to the dictionary definition given above - Stamford IS a suburb of NYC. It is a smaller community situated outside the city boundary. If we want to involve additional arguments such as history etc - it plainly means that this dictionary definition does not apply. And if it does not apply for Stamford, it does not apply for Malakhovka. As easy as this.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the confusion you site would be shared by native English speakers, and rather shows the difficulty of relying on dictionary definitions. There are lots of examples of two "cities" in close proximity where no one would call one a suburb of the other. For example in England you have Liverpool and Manchester, within commuting distance of each other, or the US you have Oakland and San Francisco. But no English speaker would think of Malakhovka as being a "city" in the sense that Manchester and Oakland are, I think for the reasons I sited for Stamford. Do we really need to find full dictionary definitions to teach non-native speakers English? cwmacdougall 11:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
The primary issue for me is interpretability, not the usage of any specific term. The opening paragraph of the Stamford article uses only terms which are readily understandable to fluent speakers of English, so I see no need to change it. The technical terms in Stamford's description also coincide with the common English terms for the same things, which means that it can be technical without sacrificing readability. The same combination is unfortunately quite elusive for Russian locales. But perhaps we can compromise on this and have a description that interweaves the two? Can anyone propose a phrasing that includes both the common-language interpretable terms (e.g., suburb, town) and the technical ones (e.g., urban settlement)? I can't speak for CW, but my one criteria here is that a casual reader should be able to read the paragraph without confusion and get an accurate general picture of Malakhovka. - Darwin/Peacock [Talk] 00:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DarwinPeacock's criteria, and so welcome suggestions for a better translation ("community" instead of "settlement", but what instead of "urban"?). None was obvious to me, hence my view that it was best to have a clear separation between the plain English description and the technical classification (with literal translation), with the description first and most prominent, and the technical classification somewhere down the page... cwmacdougall 11:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia/Archive_3&oldid=1256294642"