Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia:

Things you can do Привет and Welcome! The following is a list of things you can do:

Draft:Russian Ambassadors[edit]

I found an old userspace draft attempting to create a table with all the Russian ambassadors. Can someone who can read Russian just verify some of the citations? It's worth making into a full article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at every single citation, but I did check about a dozen of those in Russian, and they all support the statements being made. That said, the draft needs quite a bit of cleanup and updating (it seems to be a work in progress abandoned in 2011—some postings have changed since then), but other than that, there is nothing problematic with this list or its references, if that's your concern.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2014; 14:47 (UTC)
It will be notoriously difficult to keep updated, since the author has colsen only to list current ambassadors.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
True, but that same author was largely responsible for updating the lists of "Russian ambassadors to XXX country", which is where the historical information was included. See, for example, list of Ambassadors of Russia to the United States. What these pages need, of course, is someone to watch over them and update as needed, and the original author, unfortunately, can no longer do that for obvious reasons.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2014; 15:07 (UTC)

Russian Street Categories with 1 Article[edit]

Two categories, which are within the scope of this WikiProject, have been nominated for dual upmerging into Category:streets in Russia and the local city category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Red Gate[edit]

I have suggested that this article be renamed, and the background material split off into a general article on Russian memorial gates. For the two separate discussions, see Talk:Red Gate (These ate two separate discussions, neither of which depend on the result of the other, if participating in both discussions, please leave the appropriate opinion in the appropriate section) -- (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy at Belushya Guba[edit]

There seems to be a little controversy at Belushya Guba. This edit was reverted because, as stated here, "all Russian leads (ledes) of similar topic were like that". May I ask where the consensus for this is/was? Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 23:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a "controversy". What we have there seems to be a commonplace occurrence of an anonymous (and presumably new) editor making a bold edit and not understanding the reasons for them being reverted. From what I see, the anon's intent was quite good, but the way s/he went about fixing the problam wasn't entirely acceptable. There is nothing wrong with fixing duplication and non-sentences, but breaking established (and commonly accepted) format and especially removing sourced information solely for the sake of improving the flow isn't how it is supposed to be done. Hence the revert. I'll try to reconcile both sides later today or tomorrow and if any of the parties still have issues with the result, we can always discuss further improvements on that article's talk page. As for the question about the "consensus", I'm sure it can be unearthed with proper digging in this WikiProject's archives. Note, however, that nearly all articles about Russian populated places have indeed been using this format for many years without anyone really complaining, so, if nothing else, the fact that at least an implicit consensus exists should be fairly obvious.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 16, 2015; 17:20 (UTC)
May I ask, and sorry for the incredible laziness here but, can you show me the consensus on where this is, as in a more specific spot than "in the WikiProject archives", if you can? Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 23:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I can't; not without spending an obscene amount of time searching the said archives (I guess I, too, am lazy, not willing to waste time on proving something I don't even feel that strongly about). It may not even be in one place but in a series of conversations, anyway. In all, it's like asking to find one spot where consensus to, say, use infoboxes in articles about places was established :) The consistency of usage and lack of perpetual ongoing debates is already a demonstration of a consensus, even an implicit one, don't you think? At any rate, improvements need to be looked at holistically, and it seems to me that was not being done here, particularly not by the IP editor.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 17, 2015; 13:23 (UTC)
Belatedly sticking my head in here. The IP editor made two changes: removing the redundant mention of its being the administrative centre (appears in 2 consecutive paragraphs) and creating a complete sentence for the demographic data. Further, their sentence on the demographic data replaced the (templated) citation of 2 censuses with what is strictly speaking an OR statement that the population had declined, and cited only the later census. I think these two changes should be considered separately. I suspect - although I haven't done the research to support it, partly because I don't have a list of small Russian administrative centres in my head to look at - that what the project has established as standard is the sentence fragment and templated citation of 2 censuses for the population statement. The IP editor's change to that was stylistically desirable, but I agree that changing all of the thousands of Russian settlement articles to eliminate that sentence fragment, even if no interpretation was added but rather the sentence read something like "The population in 2002 was X, in 2010 Y", followed by the two templated refs in the reverse of their current order, would be a tremendous amount of work and probably isn't worth the bother. Plus there is the OR issue. The article has been subsequently changed again and currently does draw the conclusion, but there is an argument that we should not draw any conclusions. On the other hand, the elimination of the second statement in consecutive paragraphs within the lede that it is the administrative centre seems to me to be an obvious improvement. Please can someone from this project check other relatively short articles on administrative centres and see whether that repetition is a general occurrence, too? Unlike the sentence fragment, I believe that should be fixed immediately wherever it occurs, but it is possible that it arose in this article because it originally didn't have a separate lede but was later expanded. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Changing all the articles to eliminate this fragment is indeed a lot of work, but it's obviously an improvement and is slowly being done (I myself am usually making this fix in articles I touch; although I don't make a point to go through all the articles to make just this particular change, nor do I believe using this fragment is that big of a deal, especially in stubs). If someone else joins in trying to help, that's obviously welcome. What's not welcome, as you rightfully noticed, is deleting pieces which are sourced and turning them into an unsourced OR statement. That's one of the reasons the IP's edit was reverted.
On the repetition of the statement about the administrative center, the Belushya Guba article is a relatively well-developed one, one which several different people worked on. I don't believe this kind of repetition is present in many other articles. In stubs, the administrative center information is usually a part of the lede; it is also a part of the "administrative/municipal divisions" section when one is present (in which case the lede sentence is a summary of it; per WP:LEDE), and obviously included into the infobox. There is little reason to repeat this statement outside of these three locations, and I have no problem with removing the administrative center mention after the "main permanent settlement" part in this edit (even as I do not agree the rest of that edit is of any improvement).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 18, 2015; 15:56 (UTC)
So, people revert with the claim of a consensus for a particular style, but then they refuse to show where that consensus was ever reached. The notion that there would be a consensus not to write in proper sentences is weird enough, but then the very same person who claims this consensus exists says that removing the fragment is "obviously an improvement".
As for the population numbers, I'm startled to see it claimed that reporting that the population changed between two census estimates could be original research. Routine calculations do not count as original research, and comparing two numbers is about as routine as it gets. In any case, when I edited Astrakhan to remove seemingly unnecessary population estimates from three censuses - it seems to me that one is plenty in the lead -- that got reverted with the claim that it was of vital importance to show whether the population had changed or remained stable.
This kind of absurdly inconsistent nitpicking tells me that your problem is not with the edit but with the editor. I have observed time and time again that an uncontroversial simple improvement to an article by an anonymous editor often triggers aggressive reverting and hatred, while the very same edit made by someone with a username passes without comment.
And one other thing, I see the suggestion being made that the mere fact of something being sourced means that it cannot be removed from the article. Being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient reason to include something in the encyclopaedia. You might as well say that people shouldn't remove correctly spelled material. (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of WP:BRD? Your second edit was inconsistent with it, and I reverted it, since you failed to address the comments. The third revert by a registered user was way off the policies, but reverting them as well would amount to starting a full-scale edit-war, and I went to their talk page instead. This has nothing to do with you bieing an IP and them being an account.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
BRD is an essay, not a guideline and certainly not a policy. You failed to understand the edit I had made, falsely claiming that there was "nothing redundant here". I addressed that: "Saying twice that it's the administrative centre is, indeed, redundant. Read edits more carefully before reverting." And now you falsely claim that I didn't. This kind of low level dishonesty is typical of those who don't like IP edits. (talk) 10:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Your talk page has enough evidence that you plainly do not understand and do not want to understand Wikipedia policies. Your reply above shows that one more policy you do not care about is WP:NPA. With such understanding of policies, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Amber Room[edit]

It took me most of my day, but I have massively improved the Amber Room article as it's of high importance of the project scale. I'm going to nominate it for GA-status before the end of the week. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for working on it.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure. Was quite interesting. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A possible hoax?[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if one of you could check to see if there is anything out there for a person by the name of Yanuc Salkovski. I can't find anything out there for the guy and it's possible that it's a hoax, especially since I can't find anything for his club. The article has the club's name in Russian and a search brings up nothing in Russian language sources. I figure that before we officially deem it a hoax that we should get one of you guys to check for sources just to make sure that there's nothing out there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Taken care of, thanks for letting us know.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

RE: Amber Room[edit]

The article is very close to pass the GA-review, but the reviewer has requested the translation of this Russian source to improve the comprehensiveness of the article. I would highly appreciate if someone who can read Russian would translate this so the article can pass for GA-status. Regards, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is just too much. I can translate a paragraph confirming some particular point but not the whole thing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, maybe someone else from the project who can read Russian fluently can translate the whole thing? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not so much about reading Russian fluently as it is about the return on investment. The thing is indeed too long. If it is used to support specific points, it would be much more productive to run it through machine translation and then to pinpoint the specific, most helpful parts, which the participants of this project will then be more than happy to translate properly. Translating a long article only to have a few pieces of it used is rather wasteful, and the source isn't even that good to invest so much time into it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 24, 2015; 17:16 (UTC)
The article just passed the GA-review. Excellent job people. Next stop is peer review. :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)