This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
To be fair, most other Wikipedia articles on cities don't really mention some of the major problems of those cities, as I've just begun to notice. In my opinion we should set an example rather than follow suit. Maybe we could start a general discussion on this somewhere - Village Pump, etc. -- Simonides 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm, sure. They're relying on statistics provided by ... who? And what is the methodology involved for comparisons?
Let me repeat again and again, because it doesn't seem to get through to your Kremlin-coloured viewpoint: no matter how liberal, non-Soviet and non-violent a state your heavily censored TV and radio and all your pop shows convince you you're living in, the fact of the matter is that Russia is still way, way behind even dangerous and often fundamentalist countries like the U.S. in acknowledging, recording and handling domestic crime, especially violent racist crime, particularly since your own authorities perpetrate it. You must live in a nice sheltered home - I'm happy for you that your social circle may be one of the exceptions - but you really need to learn more about your city and your country. Why don't you read this for a change, it's dated and it mostly focuses on Chechnya, but the smattering they mention is enough to make any normal person sick - http://moscow.usembassy.gov/bilateral/human_rights_2004.php . Here's a nice little excerpt:
As for businesses, there is plenty of information on the web, and like I've said over and over, you only have to look for it. I'm sure you have a lot of time - I don't. Please don't keep wasting my time. Use yours to educate yourself about things your little TV set won't tell you. Here are some samples that verify what EVERYONE who actually WORKS in or with businesses in Moscow knows. Also, it's increasing every year, so don't try feeding us some crap about how it really was from a long time ago. Take a look at the chart in the Economist article, or pay attention to this line in the Forbes and the Moscow times articles: "The average businessman pays out $135,800 in bribes every year, an amount that is 13 times higher than four years ago, the report said." By the way - these articles are just about official corruption, not even about the Mafia (maybe you want some statistics kept by the Mafia too?)! -- Simonides 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I posted the entire article Azov, so you wouldn't have the excuse of a broken link or not being able to find it. Yablokova ("from an apple" is the connotation if I'm not mistaken) is a cute name, don't you think? Maybe something we can agree on. --
Simonides 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to ask me to "chill down". If I have to spend any time at all on WP, I would rather spend it editing than squabbling on Talk pages. Yet, inevitably, because of minor objections that people could easily take the initiative to modify themselves, I find my time wasted on the latter, in this case because of you - essentially I had to prove myself right once again by doing boring searches and posting long arguments to make you see what was never incorrect in the first place or what you failed to understand. If you're not arguing with my position then why go out of your way to create obstacles? Or make grand counter-statements like these: 'we shouldn't make blatant generalizations based purely on our guesswork.'? You should be much more careful how you go about making changes to articles. It's for your own sake - you can prevent foot in mouth disease too. -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Once again, you fail to understand my comment. I'm not asking you about Wikipedia policies. I'm asking you about the verifiability of the article YOU quoted - what were the methodologies and numbers it was based on? -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
If it requires clarity, clarify it, don't remove it. In using the term 'independent theatres' I meant both theatres that show independent or non-mainstream films, and ones that aren't owned, together with other theatres or other business ventures, by a single body. This is the only document I could dig up right now to show your speculations to the contrary are wrong; it's at least three years old, and things have certainly changed a lot now, but not in favour of the independent theatres.
Who did full the article with wild fantasies?
For example:
Stalin did build seven other skyscrapers however, apparently inspired by the Municipal Building which Stalin saw on his visit to Manhattan.
Stalin NEVER been neither to Manhattan nor to the USA. Who did wrote this delirium?-- Nixer 00:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Article really gave me info on culture. You might want to update the coat of arms, though. Thanks. :-)
NTV - the first privately-owned Russian TV station
It is NOT privately owned. It is owned by Gazprom.-- Nixer 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I recently read somewhere (& damfino where, because it intrigued me) Moscow's pop couldn't actually exceed 750K because road/ry system can't support more than that, & #s are a fic... Has anybody else seen this? Confirm & include?! Trekphiler 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
In 1960, the Soviet government claimed the population of Moscow was five million: Western estimates put it at 750,000, based on the infrastructure, etc. (there was no way enough food was being shipped in to feed five million). Robert A. Heinlein wrote about this in his account of his travel through the Soviet Union that year (1960). -- Abraxas 19:35 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind? Moscow is the biggest and most populous capital in Europe? 750 000? ha!-- Davydov 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That is obsurd! 750,000??? Do we have kids here?
Could the editor who keeps placing Moscow in central Russia please stop doing so? Moscow is geographically in western Russia. See [5] [6] [7] [8] James James 00:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You are simply wrong. Belarus is not actually in Russia! I've sourced my change, so please stop reverting it. James James 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Check out this map. As you can see, Moscow is very much in western Russia. Please don't try to make a political point with a geographical fact. James James 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's clear from your discussion why you want to say Moscow is "central". You talk about Rus and you place Belarus within Russia. Moscow may be central in historical and political terms, but geographically it is in the west of Russia, as is noted by the sources I gave. You provide no sources whatsoever for your view. Please do so. James James 01:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Elk Salmon, Moscow is historically center of Russia, but geographically part of western Russia.
Olorin28 17:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how using "European" will express the location of Moscow. Central Europe? It is not even located in the central part of Europe. Olorin28 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Elk Salmon, please review Wikipedia:Verifiability Olorin28 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Here just to make more clear, Elk Salmon, can you make a list of reasons why Moscow are not geographically Western Russia? Olorin28 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The articles about London and New York City include a geography section, something Moscow doesn't have, and many ignorant people won't know what European Russia is.
Olorin28 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"European" does not equal "western". Cornwall is not in European England, and Los Angeles is not in European United States. The word used in English for parts of countries that are in their west is "western".
You have not provided a single source that says that Moscow is not in western Russia, or that to say that it is in Russia's west is "abusive". Please do. James James 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again you have to provide sources again. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. Olorin28 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Now this is not correct for you? The city is in the central federal district located in European Russia. it is central federal district. or don't? it is european russia. or don't?
I rephrased this sentence without word 'western'. But it is still correct.
Understand now? Elk Salmon 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And isn't Western Russia correct? and clearer? Olorin28 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Uhh...Moscow is located in Western Russia geographically. There really should not be an arguement about it. - Harlequinjack
In asnwering the Request for Comments, and having read the above discussion, I would say that Moscow is the historical centre of Russia and the geographical centre of European Russia (i.e. that part west of the Ural Mountains. Paul James Cowie 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems too wordy to be factually correct by stating that Moscow is in "Central European" Russia. I would stick to Moscow being in the west geographically (a source would be any map of Russia) and in the central politically (whether you emphasize it being the captial city, or with a map showing population density, etc.) How you would word that in the entry is up to the editor. - Spartanfox86 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm responding to the RfC. My map shows Moscow in Western Russia. If there is a desire to mention its central role in affairs or even historically, that is fine. If its geography within Russia is to be discussed, it should say western. InvictaHOG 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I was here from the RfC too, and I completely agree with InvictaHOG. Geographically it should say Western Russia. Olorin28 13:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've also just come from the RfC. The current compromise seems good - perhaps, if we were being really pedantic, it could read 'in the west of the Russian Federation', to emphasise that this refers to the modern state, rather than any other concepts of Russia Robdurbar 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In Geography of Sweden, there is a line near the end of the "Lands of Sweden" section that says: "The town of Stockholm, which became the Swedish capital mostly because it was centrally located vis-a-vis to Finnish provinces, is geographically located in the east and south of Sweden, but in the Swedish mindset this is rather more perceived as middle Sweden." A clarification just like this regarding Moscow might be helpful? siafu 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course Moscow is in Western Russia. Now, Perm is Central Russia and the capital should be moved there :) These snobby Moscovites are completely out of their minds if they think they're in the centre of anything. Grue 14:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Western Russia, no dout. But, yes, russians commonly put Moscow in Central Russia, for unclear reason. TestPilot 03:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Moscow is clearly in the western portion of Russia. However, the current compromise version is a good one. event 05:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there is semantic confusion here. Geographically Moscow is clearly in the west of the country as it is now, you only need to look at a map to see that ( [9]), administratively I have no idea, but I would expect a Russian native to know better than me and if he says it's in the Central District then I'm sure it can be verified. nick 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to add my two cents. First: nuances of language. There's "west", and there's "West". Captial "W" and small "w"; they mean different things. "west" is entirely geographical; it's to your left if you're facing north, that's all. "West" is geopolitical, and roughly equates to the US and EU (I said roughly, don't flame me). As far as I can tell, Moscow is in western Russia and is in Central Russia. Get it? If you take a ruler and lay it out along the length of Russia, you'll find that Moscow is to the west of the physical centre of the country. Obvious. If you consider geopolitics and economics, then Moscow is in Central Russia; always has been.
And everybody knows that Moscow is NOT in Western Russia and in central Russia, right? ;-) - Sckchui 10:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Muscovite and I don't find the term "Western Russia" abusive, it's just uncommon. You wouldn't call Alaska "North-Western USA", wouldn't you (though it's obviously located in the very north-west)? However I'm not sure what name is of common use in English-speaking countries. In Russia we usually use "European Russia" or "European part of Russia" for designating this part of the country. The region was actually central before Russia began to expand eastwards in the 16-17 centuries. At the moment it is obviously located in the west of Russia though, but the term "central" still remains, mostly because of economic and political roule of Moscow.-- Shakura 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean:
? -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I came because of the RFC. I hope people will stop talking about where Moscow is located geographically, as it's rather silly. Just find different semantics.
I just superimposed a map of Russia on the United States. Although admitted I did a very sloppy job, Moscow appears to correspond to a position roughly in northern California. Also, Moscow is actually fairly far west in terms of population.
Anyway, an initial geographic description of Moscow must state that it is in the west of Russia. In other critical aspects, however, it would represent the antithesis of Western "European" Russia, or at least the middle ground between Russian cultural purists and Russian modernists for the past 300-400 years. # Masonbarge 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Masonbarge. It must be stated that Moscow is located in the west of Russia without using the confusing term "Western Russia" because of its ambiguity.-- Shakura 11:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name and use of this airport http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Moscow&ll=55.787192,37.532644&spn=0.01303,0.066605&t=k
The stadium in the upper right is Dinamo stadium and the airport is, oddly enough, very near the Aeroport metro stop on Leningradsky Prospekt. I stayed 2 weeks in a hotel maybe 2 blocks from this place and had no idea it was there... 209.47.162.98 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Added a page for Khodynka airfield. 209.47.162.98 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, please do not revert. What do not you agree?-- Nixer 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I storngly doubt this, in many cities (e.g. Paris or Chicago) the metro system goes far into the suburbs, while in Moscow it does not go beyong MKAD. Can you check and provide citation? abakharev 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody have a good image of Grand Sport Arena in Luzhniki to incert in the sports section?-- Nixer 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
However, while the overall stability has improved in the recent years, crime and corruption continue to remain a problem hindering business development. A recent study showed that far from decreasing, corruption in the Putin era has been on the rise, and large businesses can expect to pay an average of over a hundred thousand dollars a year in bribes to officials. The Mafia also runs extortion rackets in most parts of the city, though there are no reliable data to understand how large their influence is. Who wrote it never been to Moscow and was never doing business here. Mafia is just fake stereotype about every single criminal. Corruption (if official reject to do something he should without private payment) in Moscow in last 5 years decreased significantly and almost gone to 0. Of course somebody who has frindly relations to some official could pass something he need using 'additional possibilities'. But this is from another opera. Mafia's rackets was popular in begin of 90's. Gone in mid 90's. Somebody above was talking about often racist crime in Moscow as very common. It's not true as well. Just several cases in year, unlike in Saint Petersburg and Voronezh. Elk Salmon 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Some people arguing on megalomania. Then why not to talk on what is real and what is megalomania. First of all - i will not refer to UN as a source because they have city proper population of moscow in list of metropolitan areas. First of all here is two sites that specialising on agglomeration population - citypopulation.de (define 13,75mln population for moscow agglomeration [16]) and world gazetteer (define 14,5mln population for moscow agglomeration [17]). Another, Russian source, is a book Social-Economical regionalisation of Russia [18] (links on site correctly works in IE). This book define 12,1mln figure for 1998. Most of settlements changed insignificantly, with total sum of changes not over 100 thous, unlike Moscow. Census of 2002 showed estimated population was wrong on 2mln and was 10,38mln in 2002, comparing to 8,3mln of official estimation before census. So roughly according to book - Moscow agglomeration is near 14,1-14,2mln in 2002. Elk Salmon 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the population of Greater Moscow, the whole metropolitan area? It should be mentioned in the article!-- Sonjaaa 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
$70 for an average plate? $50 per person for Moomoo? No way. Moo moo is a $10 meal, no? Most franchises have close-to American prices.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dunadan11 ( talk • contribs) .
It is not a seal but coat of arms.-- Nixer 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a chapter about industry?-- Nixer 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of the {{ fact}} tag is to get citations. This article, as it is right now, is for the most part well-written, but also poorly cited. And so by adding {{ fact}} templates to the article, we would be getting others to notice this flaw in the article and perhaps replace the tags with citations. Removing them just because there are many does not seem like a good reason. I'm going re-add some of the tags back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally. There are too much of absolutely useless references, some even just ridiculous. Like 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 as of this edition. Elk Salmon 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A MedCab case on this question has been opened. You can join the discussion on how many sourcers are needed, when are they needed, and which sources are prefefable, there. -- CP/M 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The to-do list is not supposed to be a place for discussion and so I copied it down here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
From Moscow's peer review:
I see this nonsence got its way into wikipedia as well (removed).
`' mikka (t) 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My translation, with additions in <<..>>
BTW, you have a couple of red links to kill here... `' mikka (t) 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the statement about eighty nations participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics because I thought a major event of international importance in Moscow shouldn't just have a simple sentence that just essentially says "they hosted the Olympics in 1980". We don't have to talk about the boycott (although, honestly, that was a major part of those Olympics and unparalleled by any other boycott). However, perhaps something should be said (like the number of participating nations) that would show the international importance of those Olympics. What do you think, Nixer? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In case there are any questions, I'm re-adding the sources (but not the {{ fact}} templates) accidentally lost during this edit. Sorry about that, I reverted a little too far back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a mismatch in terminology in ru:Административное деление Москвы and Administrative divisions of Moscow articles. in terms of choice of words "administrative/municipal" and "district/okrug/raion". Moskali, please make an order (in the whole category:Administrative divisions of Moscow). `' mikka (t)
This...
...sounds like original research (i.e. a testimonial from a Wikipedian instead from a more scholarly, reputable source). Since Wikipedia has a policy against original research, we need to get a reputable source to attest to this (especially if we want this to become a featured article). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed User:TSO1D removed the gallery of images, while User:Nixer put it back. Repeating what I said earlier...
I still hold that view; the gallery should not be in the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Apologies, Nixer, for removing what you insist is an important sentence. However, I can't understand what it - Many industries also located in Mosow area near Moscow. - is saying. It is saying that there are also other industries located just outside Moscow?
Regarding this edit: I was trying to show the popularity of Cristall in other parts of the world. The way it's phrased now makes Cristall sound the name of the plant. I thought it was the name of the company that manufactures vodka.
That's all for now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This section appears to have some odd information. For example it states that: "Today it [the service charge] is around $3000 per square meter." Thus if a person has a 3 room apartment with an average 70 sq. m, then the fee is $21,000? Who in the world can afford that? And furthermore it is not specified whether that is per year or month. And then this: "If a person from a family/group dies or moves, the service costs increase for extra meters." That makes no sense, the fee is directly proportional to the number of people, thus if that number increas, so does the fee, not vice versa. TSO1D 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Climate section in other articles about cities is always in the bottom of the article-- Nixer 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading currect version one may think that the reason of cold weather in Moscow is that Moscow is in the north. However, this is not the case: unlike most places in the world in western part of Russia "colder" means not "more to north", but "more to east". The reason is that in western part of Russia Gulf Stream is playing very big role in the climate (comparable with Sun energy). In St.Peterburg (which is much closer to north then Moscow, but a bit closer to west) weather is near the same as in Moscow or a bit warmer. However if one will have a look at cities on the same parallel with Moscow he will see that the cities in the west from Moscow have warmer weather and the cities to the east from Moscow have colder weather (of course, going to north in Russia also means changes in the weather to more cold, but this effect is less then when going to east).
You say "Voitovich manufactures rail vehicles". Saying this is just as saying "Kennedy manufactures spacecrafts in the space center in Florida"-- Nixer 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Moscow&action=edit§ion=30
The city plans are outdated. I recommend to move them into the History of Moscow article.-- Nixer 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Information on Russian State Library is better placed in Education chapter or in Science (which I am going to add)?-- Nixer 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the supporters' violence to move into crime section, and expand the sports chapter.-- Nixer 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This section appears to have some odd information. For example it states that: "Today it [the service charge] is around $3000 per square meter." Thus if a person has a 3 room apartment with an average 70 sq. m, then the fee is $21,000? Who in the world can afford that? And furthermore it is not specified whether that is per year or month. And then this: "If a person from a family/group dies or moves, the service costs increase for extra meters." That makes no sense, the fee is directly proportional to the number of people, thus if that number increas, so does the fee, not vice versa. TSO1D 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D, why did you changed all center words to centre?-- Nixer 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need a dining section? It looks like something for a tourbook (I know I may have said this about other items or sections). It's simply not particularly relevant to the city, or at least not in its current form. As a result, I have removed it. If someone thinks the section is essential to the article, I believe it should be written from scratch rather than re-added and simply edited. But you don't have to listen to me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the sections are ordered:
* 1 History * 2 Government * 3 Culture o 3.1 Architecture o 3.2 Views of Moscow o 3.3 Visual and performing arts * 4 Education * 5 Transport o 5.1 Intercity transport o 5.2 Local transport * 6 Demographics * 7 Tourism * 8 Sports * 9 Economy o 9.1 Business and Trade o 9.2 Industry o 9.3 Living costs * 10 Geography o 10.1 Climate o 10.2 City plan o 10.3 Air pollution * 11 Social aspects * 12 Media * 13 Bibliography * 14 Notes and references * 15 See also * 16 External links o 16.1 General o 16.2 Media o 16.3 Images
I suggest:
* 1 History * 2 Geography o 2.1 Climate o 2.2 City plan o 2.3 Air pollution * 3 Government * 4 Demographics o 4.1 Crime * 5 Economy o 5.1 Business and Trade o 5.2 Industry o 5.3 Living costs o 5.4 Tourism * 6 Culture o 6.1 Architecture o 6.2 Visual and performing arts o 6.3 Sports * 7 Transport o 7.1 Intercity transport o 7.2 Local transport * 8 Education * 9 Media * 10 See also * 11 Bibliography * 12 Notes and references * 13 External links o 13.1 General o 13.2 Media o 13.3 Images
...with Views of Moscow - if it stays - merged into Architecture. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel demographics is more relevant to education, dont you think so?-- Nixer 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"As of 2006 there are 8470 thousand people able to work of which 1728 thousand employed by state, 4423 thousand - by private companies and 1988 thousand - in small business. There are 34.4 thousand officially registered unemployed."
where did that come from? it doesn't make much sence. if the city's population is 14million why only ~8000 people can work? i am deleting that section until someone can rewrite that paragraph.-- Greg.loutsenko 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, can you please make the third link to the same source from the city population in the first chapter?-- Nixer 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, please make this article better, not worser! NO ONE of your edits to this article make it better!-- Nixer 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason I removed one of the images from the demographics section is because the section's too crowded, especially on high-resolution computers. What I see, with a screen width of 1280px, is two images - one on the left and one on the right - and the crime statistics table pushed away from the right side since one of the images is in the way. Frankly, I don't see why we need both images and so the best way to solve this would be just to remove one of them. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to shy away from the {{ fact}} tags, unless absolutely necessary. And so, here are the rationales for the {{ fact}} tags:
It would be great to find some sources for this information. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This sound very strange. What is less conventional experience and why Moscow is less conventional then other cities?
Another very strange phrase. Had the author been to tropics ever?-- Nixer 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright examination was requested regarding subject described below. Sadly copyright examinations is not the right place for the request. The most common reason is that the content has already been added/uploaded to Wikipedia. Such cases (violations or not) are taken care of at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The request has been moved to List of rejected requests. Please move the request to a better location so it can be taken care of. When the request is moved and/or backed up, please remove this template and the entry from copyright examinations page. |
Fair use images must serve a specific purpose:
There are three options for number one, regarding what the image illustrates:
As a result, the image does not belong in the Moscow article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The image is used to illustrate the North River Terminal and as such is valid under fair-use terms.-- Nixer 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Where did that guy get this delirium from? Is it original research or simply wild fantasies?-- Nixer 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Kremlin is not the seat of the Russian government. It has been the seat of the Soviet government, but now it is not true.-- Nixer 06:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe the crime table is really necessary. I feel it's enough to just summarize the crime situation in the appropriate section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The section is so short and neither of the images provide much information about demographics. An image in that section is purely decoration, but two images is superfluous. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you support removing the current gallery of pictures in its entirety in the article, or do you favor its replacement by a link to the collection of pictures at Commons?
Sorry for reviving this issue but I still wish we could solve it one way or another and hopefully others will continue to vote and perhaps some form of consensus can be reached. If some users oppose removing the gallery completly, how about simply downsizing it and maybe moving it to the end. The 4x4 gallery in the middle is just too large and cumbersome. If you are afraid of the pictures being lost, we can move the entire gallery to Views of Moscow or something of the sort, and then only keeping half of it or so in the article, and ideally at the end. TSO1D 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The gallery disrupts the flow of the article. I, personally, don't think the gallery belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, and especially not in its own article. If this were an article on a artist, I'd consider a shortened version of a gallery showcasing an artist's works as that's essential to the subject. But right now, we have an indiscriminate collection of images that add nothing to the article. If readers want to look at a collection of images showcasing Moscow, they should be directed to Wikimedia Commons. Each wiki has its purpose: Wikinews is for news, so we don't put trivial news subjects here; likewise, Wikimedia Commons is for collections of images, so we don't but indiscriminate collections of images here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, please stop distortiong the meaning of the sentences. In various edits you distort the meaning of the sentences, completely perverting and distorting it. Please stop making changes which change the meaning unless you do not know what is true.-- Nixer 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody re-create a copyright-free map of land costs based on this image: [20] ?-- Nixer 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
==Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of Moscow then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities?==
Yes?No? 87.113.26.73 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not true. One could pay for a cooperative flat during the Soviet period and make it his own property.-- Nixer 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your concerns why this section about metro expansion plans should not exist in the article.-- Nixer 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Today, its campus is the largest university campus in the world. [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Many photos in this article are copyrighted. Please try to use free images for Wikipedia articles, instead of copyrighted images. An article on a major city like Moscow should not need to use any copyrighted images. -- Mamin27 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the copyrighted photos: Image:Srv2.jpg Image:Trvn2.jpg Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png Image:Federation Tower1.jpg Image:Loc1.jpg Image:Novoleto.jpg
How would you imagine a non-copyrighted image of a building being constructed?-- Nixer 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
To be fair, most other Wikipedia articles on cities don't really mention some of the major problems of those cities, as I've just begun to notice. In my opinion we should set an example rather than follow suit. Maybe we could start a general discussion on this somewhere - Village Pump, etc. -- Simonides 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hm, sure. They're relying on statistics provided by ... who? And what is the methodology involved for comparisons?
Let me repeat again and again, because it doesn't seem to get through to your Kremlin-coloured viewpoint: no matter how liberal, non-Soviet and non-violent a state your heavily censored TV and radio and all your pop shows convince you you're living in, the fact of the matter is that Russia is still way, way behind even dangerous and often fundamentalist countries like the U.S. in acknowledging, recording and handling domestic crime, especially violent racist crime, particularly since your own authorities perpetrate it. You must live in a nice sheltered home - I'm happy for you that your social circle may be one of the exceptions - but you really need to learn more about your city and your country. Why don't you read this for a change, it's dated and it mostly focuses on Chechnya, but the smattering they mention is enough to make any normal person sick - http://moscow.usembassy.gov/bilateral/human_rights_2004.php . Here's a nice little excerpt:
As for businesses, there is plenty of information on the web, and like I've said over and over, you only have to look for it. I'm sure you have a lot of time - I don't. Please don't keep wasting my time. Use yours to educate yourself about things your little TV set won't tell you. Here are some samples that verify what EVERYONE who actually WORKS in or with businesses in Moscow knows. Also, it's increasing every year, so don't try feeding us some crap about how it really was from a long time ago. Take a look at the chart in the Economist article, or pay attention to this line in the Forbes and the Moscow times articles: "The average businessman pays out $135,800 in bribes every year, an amount that is 13 times higher than four years ago, the report said." By the way - these articles are just about official corruption, not even about the Mafia (maybe you want some statistics kept by the Mafia too?)! -- Simonides 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I posted the entire article Azov, so you wouldn't have the excuse of a broken link or not being able to find it. Yablokova ("from an apple" is the connotation if I'm not mistaken) is a cute name, don't you think? Maybe something we can agree on. --
Simonides 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you're in a position to ask me to "chill down". If I have to spend any time at all on WP, I would rather spend it editing than squabbling on Talk pages. Yet, inevitably, because of minor objections that people could easily take the initiative to modify themselves, I find my time wasted on the latter, in this case because of you - essentially I had to prove myself right once again by doing boring searches and posting long arguments to make you see what was never incorrect in the first place or what you failed to understand. If you're not arguing with my position then why go out of your way to create obstacles? Or make grand counter-statements like these: 'we shouldn't make blatant generalizations based purely on our guesswork.'? You should be much more careful how you go about making changes to articles. It's for your own sake - you can prevent foot in mouth disease too. -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Once again, you fail to understand my comment. I'm not asking you about Wikipedia policies. I'm asking you about the verifiability of the article YOU quoted - what were the methodologies and numbers it was based on? -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
If it requires clarity, clarify it, don't remove it. In using the term 'independent theatres' I meant both theatres that show independent or non-mainstream films, and ones that aren't owned, together with other theatres or other business ventures, by a single body. This is the only document I could dig up right now to show your speculations to the contrary are wrong; it's at least three years old, and things have certainly changed a lot now, but not in favour of the independent theatres.
Who did full the article with wild fantasies?
For example:
Stalin did build seven other skyscrapers however, apparently inspired by the Municipal Building which Stalin saw on his visit to Manhattan.
Stalin NEVER been neither to Manhattan nor to the USA. Who did wrote this delirium?-- Nixer 00:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Article really gave me info on culture. You might want to update the coat of arms, though. Thanks. :-)
NTV - the first privately-owned Russian TV station
It is NOT privately owned. It is owned by Gazprom.-- Nixer 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I recently read somewhere (& damfino where, because it intrigued me) Moscow's pop couldn't actually exceed 750K because road/ry system can't support more than that, & #s are a fic... Has anybody else seen this? Confirm & include?! Trekphiler 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
In 1960, the Soviet government claimed the population of Moscow was five million: Western estimates put it at 750,000, based on the infrastructure, etc. (there was no way enough food was being shipped in to feed five million). Robert A. Heinlein wrote about this in his account of his travel through the Soviet Union that year (1960). -- Abraxas 19:35 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you out of your mind? Moscow is the biggest and most populous capital in Europe? 750 000? ha!-- Davydov 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
That is obsurd! 750,000??? Do we have kids here?
Could the editor who keeps placing Moscow in central Russia please stop doing so? Moscow is geographically in western Russia. See [5] [6] [7] [8] James James 00:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
You are simply wrong. Belarus is not actually in Russia! I've sourced my change, so please stop reverting it. James James 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Check out this map. As you can see, Moscow is very much in western Russia. Please don't try to make a political point with a geographical fact. James James 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
It's clear from your discussion why you want to say Moscow is "central". You talk about Rus and you place Belarus within Russia. Moscow may be central in historical and political terms, but geographically it is in the west of Russia, as is noted by the sources I gave. You provide no sources whatsoever for your view. Please do so. James James 01:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Elk Salmon, Moscow is historically center of Russia, but geographically part of western Russia.
Olorin28 17:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how using "European" will express the location of Moscow. Central Europe? It is not even located in the central part of Europe. Olorin28 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Elk Salmon, please review Wikipedia:Verifiability Olorin28 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Here just to make more clear, Elk Salmon, can you make a list of reasons why Moscow are not geographically Western Russia? Olorin28 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
The articles about London and New York City include a geography section, something Moscow doesn't have, and many ignorant people won't know what European Russia is.
Olorin28 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
"European" does not equal "western". Cornwall is not in European England, and Los Angeles is not in European United States. The word used in English for parts of countries that are in their west is "western".
You have not provided a single source that says that Moscow is not in western Russia, or that to say that it is in Russia's west is "abusive". Please do. James James 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Once again you have to provide sources again. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. Olorin28 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Now this is not correct for you? The city is in the central federal district located in European Russia. it is central federal district. or don't? it is european russia. or don't?
I rephrased this sentence without word 'western'. But it is still correct.
Understand now? Elk Salmon 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
And isn't Western Russia correct? and clearer? Olorin28 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Uhh...Moscow is located in Western Russia geographically. There really should not be an arguement about it. - Harlequinjack
In asnwering the Request for Comments, and having read the above discussion, I would say that Moscow is the historical centre of Russia and the geographical centre of European Russia (i.e. that part west of the Ural Mountains. Paul James Cowie 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems too wordy to be factually correct by stating that Moscow is in "Central European" Russia. I would stick to Moscow being in the west geographically (a source would be any map of Russia) and in the central politically (whether you emphasize it being the captial city, or with a map showing population density, etc.) How you would word that in the entry is up to the editor. - Spartanfox86 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm responding to the RfC. My map shows Moscow in Western Russia. If there is a desire to mention its central role in affairs or even historically, that is fine. If its geography within Russia is to be discussed, it should say western. InvictaHOG 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I was here from the RfC too, and I completely agree with InvictaHOG. Geographically it should say Western Russia. Olorin28 13:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I've also just come from the RfC. The current compromise seems good - perhaps, if we were being really pedantic, it could read 'in the west of the Russian Federation', to emphasise that this refers to the modern state, rather than any other concepts of Russia Robdurbar 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In Geography of Sweden, there is a line near the end of the "Lands of Sweden" section that says: "The town of Stockholm, which became the Swedish capital mostly because it was centrally located vis-a-vis to Finnish provinces, is geographically located in the east and south of Sweden, but in the Swedish mindset this is rather more perceived as middle Sweden." A clarification just like this regarding Moscow might be helpful? siafu 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course Moscow is in Western Russia. Now, Perm is Central Russia and the capital should be moved there :) These snobby Moscovites are completely out of their minds if they think they're in the centre of anything. Grue 14:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Western Russia, no dout. But, yes, russians commonly put Moscow in Central Russia, for unclear reason. TestPilot 03:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Moscow is clearly in the western portion of Russia. However, the current compromise version is a good one. event 05:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe there is semantic confusion here. Geographically Moscow is clearly in the west of the country as it is now, you only need to look at a map to see that ( [9]), administratively I have no idea, but I would expect a Russian native to know better than me and if he says it's in the Central District then I'm sure it can be verified. nick 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'm going to add my two cents. First: nuances of language. There's "west", and there's "West". Captial "W" and small "w"; they mean different things. "west" is entirely geographical; it's to your left if you're facing north, that's all. "West" is geopolitical, and roughly equates to the US and EU (I said roughly, don't flame me). As far as I can tell, Moscow is in western Russia and is in Central Russia. Get it? If you take a ruler and lay it out along the length of Russia, you'll find that Moscow is to the west of the physical centre of the country. Obvious. If you consider geopolitics and economics, then Moscow is in Central Russia; always has been.
And everybody knows that Moscow is NOT in Western Russia and in central Russia, right? ;-) - Sckchui 10:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm a Muscovite and I don't find the term "Western Russia" abusive, it's just uncommon. You wouldn't call Alaska "North-Western USA", wouldn't you (though it's obviously located in the very north-west)? However I'm not sure what name is of common use in English-speaking countries. In Russia we usually use "European Russia" or "European part of Russia" for designating this part of the country. The region was actually central before Russia began to expand eastwards in the 16-17 centuries. At the moment it is obviously located in the west of Russia though, but the term "central" still remains, mostly because of economic and political roule of Moscow.-- Shakura 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean:
? -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I came because of the RFC. I hope people will stop talking about where Moscow is located geographically, as it's rather silly. Just find different semantics.
I just superimposed a map of Russia on the United States. Although admitted I did a very sloppy job, Moscow appears to correspond to a position roughly in northern California. Also, Moscow is actually fairly far west in terms of population.
Anyway, an initial geographic description of Moscow must state that it is in the west of Russia. In other critical aspects, however, it would represent the antithesis of Western "European" Russia, or at least the middle ground between Russian cultural purists and Russian modernists for the past 300-400 years. # Masonbarge 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Masonbarge. It must be stated that Moscow is located in the west of Russia without using the confusing term "Western Russia" because of its ambiguity.-- Shakura 11:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name and use of this airport http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Moscow&ll=55.787192,37.532644&spn=0.01303,0.066605&t=k
The stadium in the upper right is Dinamo stadium and the airport is, oddly enough, very near the Aeroport metro stop on Leningradsky Prospekt. I stayed 2 weeks in a hotel maybe 2 blocks from this place and had no idea it was there... 209.47.162.98 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Added a page for Khodynka airfield. 209.47.162.98 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, please do not revert. What do not you agree?-- Nixer 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I storngly doubt this, in many cities (e.g. Paris or Chicago) the metro system goes far into the suburbs, while in Moscow it does not go beyong MKAD. Can you check and provide citation? abakharev 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody have a good image of Grand Sport Arena in Luzhniki to incert in the sports section?-- Nixer 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
However, while the overall stability has improved in the recent years, crime and corruption continue to remain a problem hindering business development. A recent study showed that far from decreasing, corruption in the Putin era has been on the rise, and large businesses can expect to pay an average of over a hundred thousand dollars a year in bribes to officials. The Mafia also runs extortion rackets in most parts of the city, though there are no reliable data to understand how large their influence is. Who wrote it never been to Moscow and was never doing business here. Mafia is just fake stereotype about every single criminal. Corruption (if official reject to do something he should without private payment) in Moscow in last 5 years decreased significantly and almost gone to 0. Of course somebody who has frindly relations to some official could pass something he need using 'additional possibilities'. But this is from another opera. Mafia's rackets was popular in begin of 90's. Gone in mid 90's. Somebody above was talking about often racist crime in Moscow as very common. It's not true as well. Just several cases in year, unlike in Saint Petersburg and Voronezh. Elk Salmon 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Some people arguing on megalomania. Then why not to talk on what is real and what is megalomania. First of all - i will not refer to UN as a source because they have city proper population of moscow in list of metropolitan areas. First of all here is two sites that specialising on agglomeration population - citypopulation.de (define 13,75mln population for moscow agglomeration [16]) and world gazetteer (define 14,5mln population for moscow agglomeration [17]). Another, Russian source, is a book Social-Economical regionalisation of Russia [18] (links on site correctly works in IE). This book define 12,1mln figure for 1998. Most of settlements changed insignificantly, with total sum of changes not over 100 thous, unlike Moscow. Census of 2002 showed estimated population was wrong on 2mln and was 10,38mln in 2002, comparing to 8,3mln of official estimation before census. So roughly according to book - Moscow agglomeration is near 14,1-14,2mln in 2002. Elk Salmon 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What is the population of Greater Moscow, the whole metropolitan area? It should be mentioned in the article!-- Sonjaaa 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
$70 for an average plate? $50 per person for Moomoo? No way. Moo moo is a $10 meal, no? Most franchises have close-to American prices.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dunadan11 ( talk • contribs) .
It is not a seal but coat of arms.-- Nixer 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Should we have a chapter about industry?-- Nixer 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The point of the {{ fact}} tag is to get citations. This article, as it is right now, is for the most part well-written, but also poorly cited. And so by adding {{ fact}} templates to the article, we would be getting others to notice this flaw in the article and perhaps replace the tags with citations. Removing them just because there are many does not seem like a good reason. I'm going re-add some of the tags back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally. There are too much of absolutely useless references, some even just ridiculous. Like 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 as of this edition. Elk Salmon 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
A MedCab case on this question has been opened. You can join the discussion on how many sourcers are needed, when are they needed, and which sources are prefefable, there. -- CP/M 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The to-do list is not supposed to be a place for discussion and so I copied it down here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
From Moscow's peer review:
I see this nonsence got its way into wikipedia as well (removed).
`' mikka (t) 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
My translation, with additions in <<..>>
BTW, you have a couple of red links to kill here... `' mikka (t) 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I added the statement about eighty nations participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics because I thought a major event of international importance in Moscow shouldn't just have a simple sentence that just essentially says "they hosted the Olympics in 1980". We don't have to talk about the boycott (although, honestly, that was a major part of those Olympics and unparalleled by any other boycott). However, perhaps something should be said (like the number of participating nations) that would show the international importance of those Olympics. What do you think, Nixer? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
In case there are any questions, I'm re-adding the sources (but not the {{ fact}} templates) accidentally lost during this edit. Sorry about that, I reverted a little too far back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a mismatch in terminology in ru:Административное деление Москвы and Administrative divisions of Moscow articles. in terms of choice of words "administrative/municipal" and "district/okrug/raion". Moskali, please make an order (in the whole category:Administrative divisions of Moscow). `' mikka (t)
This...
...sounds like original research (i.e. a testimonial from a Wikipedian instead from a more scholarly, reputable source). Since Wikipedia has a policy against original research, we need to get a reputable source to attest to this (especially if we want this to become a featured article). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed User:TSO1D removed the gallery of images, while User:Nixer put it back. Repeating what I said earlier...
I still hold that view; the gallery should not be in the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Apologies, Nixer, for removing what you insist is an important sentence. However, I can't understand what it - Many industries also located in Mosow area near Moscow. - is saying. It is saying that there are also other industries located just outside Moscow?
Regarding this edit: I was trying to show the popularity of Cristall in other parts of the world. The way it's phrased now makes Cristall sound the name of the plant. I thought it was the name of the company that manufactures vodka.
That's all for now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This section appears to have some odd information. For example it states that: "Today it [the service charge] is around $3000 per square meter." Thus if a person has a 3 room apartment with an average 70 sq. m, then the fee is $21,000? Who in the world can afford that? And furthermore it is not specified whether that is per year or month. And then this: "If a person from a family/group dies or moves, the service costs increase for extra meters." That makes no sense, the fee is directly proportional to the number of people, thus if that number increas, so does the fee, not vice versa. TSO1D 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Climate section in other articles about cities is always in the bottom of the article-- Nixer 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Reading currect version one may think that the reason of cold weather in Moscow is that Moscow is in the north. However, this is not the case: unlike most places in the world in western part of Russia "colder" means not "more to north", but "more to east". The reason is that in western part of Russia Gulf Stream is playing very big role in the climate (comparable with Sun energy). In St.Peterburg (which is much closer to north then Moscow, but a bit closer to west) weather is near the same as in Moscow or a bit warmer. However if one will have a look at cities on the same parallel with Moscow he will see that the cities in the west from Moscow have warmer weather and the cities to the east from Moscow have colder weather (of course, going to north in Russia also means changes in the weather to more cold, but this effect is less then when going to east).
You say "Voitovich manufactures rail vehicles". Saying this is just as saying "Kennedy manufactures spacecrafts in the space center in Florida"-- Nixer 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Moscow&action=edit§ion=30
The city plans are outdated. I recommend to move them into the History of Moscow article.-- Nixer 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Information on Russian State Library is better placed in Education chapter or in Science (which I am going to add)?-- Nixer 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the supporters' violence to move into crime section, and expand the sports chapter.-- Nixer 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This section appears to have some odd information. For example it states that: "Today it [the service charge] is around $3000 per square meter." Thus if a person has a 3 room apartment with an average 70 sq. m, then the fee is $21,000? Who in the world can afford that? And furthermore it is not specified whether that is per year or month. And then this: "If a person from a family/group dies or moves, the service costs increase for extra meters." That makes no sense, the fee is directly proportional to the number of people, thus if that number increas, so does the fee, not vice versa. TSO1D 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
TSO1D, why did you changed all center words to centre?-- Nixer 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need a dining section? It looks like something for a tourbook (I know I may have said this about other items or sections). It's simply not particularly relevant to the city, or at least not in its current form. As a result, I have removed it. If someone thinks the section is essential to the article, I believe it should be written from scratch rather than re-added and simply edited. But you don't have to listen to me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the sections are ordered:
* 1 History * 2 Government * 3 Culture o 3.1 Architecture o 3.2 Views of Moscow o 3.3 Visual and performing arts * 4 Education * 5 Transport o 5.1 Intercity transport o 5.2 Local transport * 6 Demographics * 7 Tourism * 8 Sports * 9 Economy o 9.1 Business and Trade o 9.2 Industry o 9.3 Living costs * 10 Geography o 10.1 Climate o 10.2 City plan o 10.3 Air pollution * 11 Social aspects * 12 Media * 13 Bibliography * 14 Notes and references * 15 See also * 16 External links o 16.1 General o 16.2 Media o 16.3 Images
I suggest:
* 1 History * 2 Geography o 2.1 Climate o 2.2 City plan o 2.3 Air pollution * 3 Government * 4 Demographics o 4.1 Crime * 5 Economy o 5.1 Business and Trade o 5.2 Industry o 5.3 Living costs o 5.4 Tourism * 6 Culture o 6.1 Architecture o 6.2 Visual and performing arts o 6.3 Sports * 7 Transport o 7.1 Intercity transport o 7.2 Local transport * 8 Education * 9 Media * 10 See also * 11 Bibliography * 12 Notes and references * 13 External links o 13.1 General o 13.2 Media o 13.3 Images
...with Views of Moscow - if it stays - merged into Architecture. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I feel demographics is more relevant to education, dont you think so?-- Nixer 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"As of 2006 there are 8470 thousand people able to work of which 1728 thousand employed by state, 4423 thousand - by private companies and 1988 thousand - in small business. There are 34.4 thousand officially registered unemployed."
where did that come from? it doesn't make much sence. if the city's population is 14million why only ~8000 people can work? i am deleting that section until someone can rewrite that paragraph.-- Greg.loutsenko 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, can you please make the third link to the same source from the city population in the first chapter?-- Nixer 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Joturner, please make this article better, not worser! NO ONE of your edits to this article make it better!-- Nixer 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The reason I removed one of the images from the demographics section is because the section's too crowded, especially on high-resolution computers. What I see, with a screen width of 1280px, is two images - one on the left and one on the right - and the crime statistics table pushed away from the right side since one of the images is in the way. Frankly, I don't see why we need both images and so the best way to solve this would be just to remove one of them. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to shy away from the {{ fact}} tags, unless absolutely necessary. And so, here are the rationales for the {{ fact}} tags:
It would be great to find some sources for this information. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This sound very strange. What is less conventional experience and why Moscow is less conventional then other cities?
Another very strange phrase. Had the author been to tropics ever?-- Nixer 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Copyright examination was requested regarding subject described below. Sadly copyright examinations is not the right place for the request. The most common reason is that the content has already been added/uploaded to Wikipedia. Such cases (violations or not) are taken care of at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The request has been moved to List of rejected requests. Please move the request to a better location so it can be taken care of. When the request is moved and/or backed up, please remove this template and the entry from copyright examinations page. |
Fair use images must serve a specific purpose:
There are three options for number one, regarding what the image illustrates:
As a result, the image does not belong in the Moscow article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The image is used to illustrate the North River Terminal and as such is valid under fair-use terms.-- Nixer 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Where did that guy get this delirium from? Is it original research or simply wild fantasies?-- Nixer 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Kremlin is not the seat of the Russian government. It has been the seat of the Soviet government, but now it is not true.-- Nixer 06:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe the crime table is really necessary. I feel it's enough to just summarize the crime situation in the appropriate section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The section is so short and neither of the images provide much information about demographics. An image in that section is purely decoration, but two images is superfluous. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you support removing the current gallery of pictures in its entirety in the article, or do you favor its replacement by a link to the collection of pictures at Commons?
Sorry for reviving this issue but I still wish we could solve it one way or another and hopefully others will continue to vote and perhaps some form of consensus can be reached. If some users oppose removing the gallery completly, how about simply downsizing it and maybe moving it to the end. The 4x4 gallery in the middle is just too large and cumbersome. If you are afraid of the pictures being lost, we can move the entire gallery to Views of Moscow or something of the sort, and then only keeping half of it or so in the article, and ideally at the end. TSO1D 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The gallery disrupts the flow of the article. I, personally, don't think the gallery belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, and especially not in its own article. If this were an article on a artist, I'd consider a shortened version of a gallery showcasing an artist's works as that's essential to the subject. But right now, we have an indiscriminate collection of images that add nothing to the article. If readers want to look at a collection of images showcasing Moscow, they should be directed to Wikimedia Commons. Each wiki has its purpose: Wikinews is for news, so we don't put trivial news subjects here; likewise, Wikimedia Commons is for collections of images, so we don't but indiscriminate collections of images here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, please stop distortiong the meaning of the sentences. In various edits you distort the meaning of the sentences, completely perverting and distorting it. Please stop making changes which change the meaning unless you do not know what is true.-- Nixer 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody re-create a copyright-free map of land costs based on this image: [20] ?-- Nixer 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
==Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of Moscow then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities?==
Yes?No? 87.113.26.73 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not true. One could pay for a cooperative flat during the Soviet period and make it his own property.-- Nixer 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Please explain your concerns why this section about metro expansion plans should not exist in the article.-- Nixer 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Today, its campus is the largest university campus in the world. [1]
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Many photos in this article are copyrighted. Please try to use free images for Wikipedia articles, instead of copyrighted images. An article on a major city like Moscow should not need to use any copyrighted images. -- Mamin27 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some of the copyrighted photos: Image:Srv2.jpg Image:Trvn2.jpg Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png Image:Federation Tower1.jpg Image:Loc1.jpg Image:Novoleto.jpg
How would you imagine a non-copyrighted image of a building being constructed?-- Nixer 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)