Talk:Staraya Russa

Star nomination discussion

This is a really neat OtBP literary destination in between St Petersburg and Moscow—the little summer getaway for the Dostoevsky family, where Mssr Fyodor Mikhailovich wrote The Brothers Karamazov. Our guide, based on the Russian version + a ton of research I just did (takes 4x as long to find stuff on the ru-net, whew!), is over three times the length of any others I can find, with much more exhaustive coverage of the city. This would be our first Russian star article, although I have another one in my back pocket! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:54, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Support. Really sweet little article with PF's usual stamp of quality written all over it.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 21:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Support. Fantastic stuff - colorfully descriptive, but also pragmatic and honest. Scanning the article I can't find anything off, with the exception that I'm not sure if the Balneological Resort listing should have hours or not (if you say no then I'll take your word for it). But other than that, looks perfect! (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 02:20, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Nitpick of course, but have we decided to allow datestamps to listings "valid as of year ...."? I mean hotel price for Hotel Polist: "1600 rubles (2009)". --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:41, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

Almost. A few comments below, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 11:28, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

1. sanitoriae: should it be sanatoriums?, which I would expect to be the most common English form
2. map: See and Do no 7 and 9 should break in the same way
3. times: should be 12-hour format and no decimals if not required
4. See and Do: I do not like the combination of see and do into one section, it makes it more difficult to understand which activities the town offers. Further, I thought our standard headings were mandatory

1. Sanitoria, actually!
2. I am not sure I understand?
3. While somewhat controversial, it had once seemed that we had something approaching a consensus to allow the 24 hour format for regions in which it is used (and in Russia it is used categorically), and thereby follow the changes made to the spelling policy. As such, we have already starred articles with the 24 hour format.
4. We have already come to an agreement (by rock paper scissors!) on this already, and have starred multiple articles (e.g., Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios, Washington, D.C./Anacostia, etc.) with the same or similar headings. In this article, the reason is simple enough: there are no activity listings to add. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:35, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

On the map, I think what Claus means is that in the legend you have:

Monastery of the

Transfiguration

and then you also have:

Museum of the

Northwest Front

(WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 22:26, 19 June 2011 (EDT)

1. Ok.
2. Yey, as PerryPlanet explained
3. It is a mess to have different ways to show hours in different countries. I read the discussion, and clearly no consensus was reached, and our policy was therefore not changed. Yes, we have a starred article using the 24 hour format (which ought to be changed), but we have several starred articles outside US using the 12 hour format. However, this is details to be discussed elsewhere. The important thing here is that the article is in non-compliance with a clear policy, and in my opinion this is not acceptable for a star article
4. I read the discussion and see that it was agreed to allow a combination of the sections for Walt Disney World/Hollywood Studios, which I guess makes sense for this very special article. However, no consensus was reached to allow combinations of sections in general, and our policy was not changed. If the combination is acceptable for Staraya Russa, I guess it will be for most of articles for smaller places. I find it strange to name a section See and Do, when it does not include any activities. Further, why do we want to hide for the reader that no activities exist? But again, this is details to be discussed elsewhere. The article is in non-compliance with a clear policy, and in my opinion this is not acceptable for a star article, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 00:03, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

The article is not "in non-compliance with a clear policy" regarding the combination of article headers. That discussion did not pertain only to WDW, and such combinations are used in numerous articles when it makes sense to do so. We clearly had a consensus to allow such headers, your assertion to the contrary has no basis. Anyway, I will simply slush this. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:34, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

As the slushing was a bit hasty, I'm restoring this. Our Star requirements specifically say "It follows the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule." That means we can award the star to articles that do not match the MOS exactly if we have a good reason to allow deviations. In my opinion, the unresolved nature of certain style standard details ought not derail an otherwise outstanding article from being starred. (WT-en) LtPowers 22:01, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Great to see the article back here. Hope it will end up with a star. However, I think the article could be improved by changing the two areas where it is not in compliance with our policies. It is correct that deviations from MoS is acceptable if some specific reasons make that needed, but I do not see that being outside US and being small are sufficiently exceptional to warrant a deviation. I think we are moving in the wrong direction if any discussion of possible change of policy should imply that both the existing and the proposed changed policy are equally acceptable for star articles. I think that until a new policy has been discussed and approved in the relevant talk page (which is not here) and the policy is changed, the existing policy should be applied to, unless the destination is so special that a deviation is needed (which is not the case here). The discussion of whether the present weaknesses of the article is sufficient to hold it back from getting the star can easily be avoided by simply improving the article as suggested, and I am really struggling to see why such improvements should not be made, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 09:50, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Are you suggesting a blank Do section? If not, what would you like to see listed there? (WT-en) LtPowers 12:22, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

I'll change the international standard back to AM/PM if it makes others happy, although I think the grounds for this objection are very weak. For a full year in the linked discussion, there were plenty voices of support for a policy change, and only one voice against. Sheki was starred under those circumstances.

The argument that a combined "See and Do" header is "in non-compliance with a clear policy" is so obviously baseless that I feel fully comfortable ignoring it and proceeding with the starring process. I would, though, like to understand why you think this is a clear policy, where you have read this, and why you think both practice and consensus would not determine our procedures. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:09, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

A combined See and Do section is fine with me. This sometimes works well in some small city articles, and more often so in park articles.

On time format, until there is a definite consensus (it seems close) on allowing use of either format, then I believe Star articles should all follow the established AM/PM format. Given the attention that is given to format issues with Stars, I am very surprised to learn that there is a existing precedent using a 24 hour time format.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 20:49, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

I've reread the "See and Do" debate (which I was a part of), and it reads like a consensus to allow it now just as I felt it was then. If it is a matter of adding some clause to the policy that states, "In special circumstances in which a location has only "See" or "Do" attractions, a combined "See and Do" section may be used." then let's just slap it on there so that this nomination can move forward. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:04, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

That's fine, and we should also mention the infrequently useful "Eat and Drink" combination if we do. Although I'm not sure we really need to, as our policy articles and our common practices already disavow an inflexible one-size-fits-all approach. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:29, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

LtPowers, if I had written this article, I would in the do section have mentioned that not many activities exist here and then put in a couple of suggested walking tours. I agree that combining See and Do can work fine in park articles, where it can be difficult to distinguish between attractions and activities, but I still find it strange to have a section called See and Do if it only includes See. If there is really nothing to write in Do, just leave the section out as it is not mandatory

Peter, as you of course know, Project:Article templates and Project:Small city article template give details of sections. They are quite detailed, but nowhere do they say anything about the possibility of combining sections, on the contrary it is stated that the See section is mandatory, which is my basis for saying that it is in non-compliance not to have a See section. I do of course think that practice and consensus are important sources to determine our procedures when our policies are not sufficiently clear. But to say that because one article received a star despite deviations from MoS establishes a new practice which overrules our stated policy appears wrong. Receiving a star despite one small weakness does not mean that a new practice has been established, and still the vast majority of our articles use AM/PM so that is the practice. And in relation to the combination of See and Do, I do not see that the discussion on a particular park article implies that a general consensus has been reached, if a consensus is to overrule a written policy (See section being mandatory) the consensus should be very clear and reached at the appropriate talk page, not in a star discussion

ChubbyWimbus, as allready stated, I find it strange to name a section See and Do if it does not include Do, why not just leave out the Do section? I think it would be great to have the consensus written into the policy, but I do not think that the discussion referred to shows exactly what the consensus is about, so I think we shold discuss first on the appropriate talk page, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 21:50, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Two points I want to put in here:

1. I do agree with Claus that if there are no activities, then it makes sense to leave out the Do section, since it's not mandatory (in other words, just rename "See & Do" to "See", and we can get on with this star nomination). As far as I can tell, the only reason having a See & Do heading with no activities listed would make sense is if you were planning to add activities later, which would imply that the article is incomplete (which I doubt is the case here, as that would disqualify it for star).
2. But Claus, you wrote that your basis for saying that this article is in non-compliance is that the See section is mandatory. ...And? Are you saying that this article doesn't have a See section? As far as I see, the See section has merely been combined with Do, not eliminated, so your argument that this article is in violation of a clear policy on this basis baffles me. Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your argument, but that's how I'm reading it. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 23:18, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

PerryPlanet, yes, the See section is mandatory, which I read as it has to be there and the name can not be changed. If someone used 'Attractions' instead of 'See' we would also change it to 'See' with the argument that that section is mandatory. The combination of See and Do is a deviation from the stated policy, which is allowable in special cases, and per consensus and practice such a special case exists for some parks, but I do not see that we have consensus or practice for allowing it, just because a destination is small, or because it has no activities. This is my basis for stating that the See and Do section here is not in compliance with policy, consensus or practice, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 23:32, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Changing "See" to "Attractions" is in violation of a clear policy, yes (in fact, Project:Section headers specifically mentions this rule). But combining section headers that do fit our standard section names violates no policy that I am familiar with. You said it yourself: nowhere in Project:Article templates does it say anything about the possibility of combining sections. It's a deviation from the norm, yes, but nowhere is this written into the policy. Perhaps this is an oversight that should be addressed in the policy in the future, but it's not written into the policy as of now. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 00:32, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

With all due respect, there are an awful lot of words written in this discussion about something not especially important. May I just suggest that somebody plunges forward and changes Project:Section headers and the relevant parts of Project:Article templates to reflect a well-established practice - i.e. See and Do can be combined into one section when appropriate?--(WT-en) Burmesedays 01:59, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Support. This Star discussion is really getting out of hand. It should be about the article, which according to me is fully worthy of being a Star and shouldn't become a victim of some outstanding policy issues we can't get resolved. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 08:54, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Never has so much been said about so little, eh? ;) Anyway, I took the plunge and incorporated this matter in policy...on Project:Section headers. However, reading Project:Article templates, I'm not quite sure how I should go about writing such a rule into that, so help there would be nice... (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 11:49, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

How about this? (WT-en) LtPowers 16:06, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Works for me! (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 23:58, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

• Support - Lovely little article. Nothing really stands out as needing to be corrected. (WT-en) texugo 02:34, 25 June 2011 (EDT)
• Support - Just one small comment, "Tours run around 300 rubles. 70 rubles" looks a bit odd. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:06, 26 June 2011 (EDT)
• Support - Some fine writing and one of the nicest looking maps on WT. - (WT-en) Cardboardbird 09:05, 26 June 2011 (EDT)

Congratulations

With the first Russia's Star Article!

(WT-en) Andrey Selskiy 03:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

balneological?

My first attempt to do anything on Wikivoyage. I have to say that I spent about 8 hours in Staraya Russa about 10 years ago, and found it a bit "off the beaten path." The sanatorium is indeed one of the highlights of the town, but I have no idea what the term "balneological" means and suggest that no modern American reader has ever heard of that term. Rather, I'd guess that this is one of those English terms that got transfered to Russia a century or two ago that they just haven't given up on yet. Do any Brits, Australian, etc. folks know this word? Smallbones (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Бальнеологический (bal'neologicheskii) is the word, and it's something encountered all over the former Soviet Union to refer to these types of places. "Balneological" looks to be my own bastardization, as Wikipedia uses "balneologic." I'll change it. --Peter ^Talk 20:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But yes, it's a pretty obscure word in English. --Peter ^Talk 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me the same word (balneological) is used in the map as well. I would correct it myself, but can't find the .svg-file. Tbp386 (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It's here, but I've gone ahead and changed it now. (You may need to refresh your browser window to see the updated version.) --Peter ^Talk 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, are there any monuments to Alyosha Fyodorovich Karamazov in the town? Lazarus1255 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

A star article without a banner

Indeed, the article provides an enormous amount of relevant information but it lacks in a banner. It has to be correted :) 1Arena1hu (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added a temporary one based on the article's main page feature banner. I hope it's an improvement. :) --Nick ^talk 11:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)