Talk:Saint Petersburg

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

Saint Petersburg is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
To-do list for Saint Petersburg: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add references and inline citations
WikiProject Echo      (Multiple languages)
WikiProject Echo has identified Saint Petersburg as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German, Finnish or Romanian language Wikipedias.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Informal name

"St. Petersburg's informal name, Piter (Питер), is based on how Peter the Great was called by foreigners." This is very unlikely, because Питер is pronounced as [pit'er], with soft t', not [pitər] or [pitə]. I think it's simple shortening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olvegg (talk • contribs) 20:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced sister cities list

I commented the sister cities list because has been marked as unsourced for 9 months now. I didn't delete them because this way it's easy to recover them. If someone can find a source for a list of cities that St Petersburg is sistered with, then the source can be added to the article, and the relevant cities uncommented. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I found an official source for a list of sister cities, so I removed all the unsourced ones. Not all sister cities appear to be listed on the official list, so I copied the unsourced ones here in case someone can source and restore them:

[edit] Disambiguation?

I believe that the Florida city of Saint Petersburg is large enough (A quarter of a million people) and important enough (Many businesses and institutions are based on StPg) to warrant a disambiguation page for the article of "Saint Petersburg". It's in a large metropolitan area, and for a long time before the collapse of the Soviet Union, people didn't have to differentiate between the two Saint Petersburgs. Who agrees with me? ColdRedRain (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

As someone who *lives* in that city, I was at least a bit surprised to find that the page wasn't at "St Petersburg, Russia". Does that violate a convention?
--Baylink (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This was previously discussed and rejected. Not that you are not welcome to re-open it, mind you, but I doubt the proposal is going to pass this time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Full agreement with the rationale given in the rejection of the proposal referenced by Ezhiki. The Russian Saint Petersburg is definitely what is associated with the name "Saint Petersburg" in virtually all countries except the U.S., and even in the U.S., I gather, the Russian association is predominating. It is a far more important city historically (former capital of the Czarist empire, among other things) and culturally (the Hermitage, the other museums of St. Petersburg, the city's architecture, specifically the cathedrals, writers, visual artists etc. that lived and worked in the city and so on) than the U.S. town, not to mention the population.
A page titled "Saint Petersburg, Russia" would be as ridiculous as a page titled, for instance, "Washington D.C., State of Bavaria, Germany", if such a hypothetical settlement existed there. Out of all the English speakers in the world (to which this Wikipedia version caters, not only to U.S. citizens), I doubt that more than 5 percent of non-U.S.-Anglophones know about St. Petersburg, Florida, while I can assure you that virtually everybody knows about Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Thus, a disambiguation page, as it currently exists, is fully warranted, but a move of Saint Petersburg to Saint Petersburg, Russia would be completely irrational and simply ridiculous. Vargher (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I probably exaggerated when I stated that St. Petersburg, Florida would be unknown to 95 percent of Anglophones, so scratch that remark as needlessly provocative. My apologies. I am still firmly convinced, though, that even if they know of the U.S. city's existence, the primary association that is made is still the Russian city. Vargher (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge of list of sister cities of saint petersburg

I have proposed that List_of_Sister_Cities_to_Saint_Petersburg is merged to the sister cities section, since they contain the same information and having that article on its own is of no use --Enric Naval (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of cities article is redundant also with List of twin towns and sister cities in Russia --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd rather prefer to split the section from the article altogether. Are we really going to devote 10% of the article space to sister cities, especially as the list is very difficult to maintain properly referenced? After all, it is an utterly insignificant issue, most Petersburgers simply don't care and can't even recall any of them. Colchicum (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you are right. I'll do that --Enric Naval (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] case for leningrad.su link

This link here [1] has been removed per linkspam and restored three times. I say that we should keep because it does provide info beyond what the article would have if it was a featured article (point 1 of Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided says to avoid links that don't provide this info).

The info consists of photos of carnivals on St Petersburg, its artillery museum and photos landscapes and streets around the city. The photos are copyrighted, yes, but I say to keep the link anyways until we can find a free use replacement for this resource.

I am the fist to nuke useless external links, but I find this one actually useful --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This website is just someone's own personal photo album. As Wikipedia states, it's not a repository. Just because whoever runs that website has a bunch of photos of Saint Petersburg does not make the website anymore justified than an extensive fansite of some television show or even a city. And according to WP:LINKSTOAVOID, "#11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." are not allowed. El Greco(talk) 01:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The person cannot receive the full information on city only proceeding from the dry legal information. St.-Petersburg is not only a set of the facts and the list of sights. It, first of all, inhabitants, their pleasures, grief, a way of life.--Sergei Frolov (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The website provides additional coverage of Saint Petersburg's carnival, its Artillery museum, buildings, etc, that could never fit into the article. If it just covered the same info already covered on the article or on some other accepted wiki like wikitravel then I would delete it myself. Please notice that I am for removing it once we find either free use photography resource or links covering this same info in a more encyclopaedic way, and that is not just a personal site. Currently, this is the best link we have. Meh, I just clicked on the wikipedia commons link right there on the external links section [2] and I found that it already has a ton of free photos covering same stuff as the website, like buildings [3] and the Artillery museum [4]. I agree with Greco that the link should be deleted (altought for a different reason) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name borrowed from Dutch

I noticed this line "The original name Sankt Pieterburg (pronounced Sankt Piterburh) was borrowed from Dutch (Modern Dutch Sint-Petersburg)". However, when listening to the sound file it doesn't sound like the Dutch "Peter", a name in Dutch pronounced as "Payter". If it's really derived from the name "Peter" in the Netherlands, the name was probably spelled Pieter (my name) since that name is actually pronounced as "Peter". - PietervHuis (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish vs Israeli

User User:Ellomate reverted original Jewish word for Israeli, which is simply wrong. Israeli citizens are not citizens of St Petersburg, Russia but of Israel. There is nothing racist about the word Jew or Jewish.

Israeli most commonly refers to the Jewish citizens of modern Israel, but may also refer to all Israeli citizens, including non-Jews.

--Atitarev (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] About crime and restoration after WW2

I wanted to expand on Russian crime because it is a big part of their culture as well as income. Another thing that i wanted to fix was the original author mentioned that buildings were destroyed during the Bolshivicks revolition however the biggest destruction came during and after WW2 ( blockade) --Jenny babaeva (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, but just take into account two things. WP:V all the info should be referenced to reliable sources. "I know such and such types of crime flourish in such and such city regions" is not good as a source. Also the article is quite long so any significant expansion would probably go to a daughter article like Crime in Saint Petersburg. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a few references however one of them is in different language. would that be a good source?--Jenny babaeva (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the language is not a problem. If there were doubts we could find a person to translate Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A mess

This page is a mess, even if compared with Moscow, especially as regards illustrations (most of which are picked on random and even lack captions). I'd like to see this page reverted to its 2005 or 2006 layout. Can anybody parse this wall of links:

Some of the most important neoclassical architects in Saint Petersburg (including those working within the Empire style) were Jean-Baptiste Vallin de la Mothe (Imperial Academy of Arts, Small Hermitage, Gostiny Dvor, New Holland Arch, Catholic Church of St. Catherine), Antonio Rinaldi (Marble Palace), Yury Felten (Old Hermitage, Chesme Church), Giacomo Quarenghi (Academy of Sciences, Hermitage Theatre, Yusupov Palace), Andrey Voronikhin (Mining Institute, Kazan Cathedral), Andreyan Zakharov (Admiralty building), Jean-François Thomas de Thomon (Spit of Vasilievsky Island), Carlo Rossi (Yelagin Palace, Mikhailovsky Palace, Alexandrine Theatre, Senate and Synod Buildings, General Staff Building, design of many streets and squares), Vasily Stasov (Moscow Triumphal Gate, Trinity Cathedral), Auguste de Montferrand (Saint Isaac's Cathedral, Alexander Column). The victory over Napoleonic France in the Patriotic War of 1812 was commemorated with many monuments, including Alexander Column by Montferrand, erected in 1834, and Narva Triumphal Gate.

Helpful, eh? This is a sad example that the quality of articles in Wikipedia is eroded as often as it is improved. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay Culture Not Mentioned

Moscow and St. Petersburg are the two centers for gay life in Russia. I hope mention of this is added and some other relevant information can also be added to the demographics section. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh - I guess this is because St Pete and Moscow are the biggest cities in RF .Umm - Why it should be added to the demograplics section ? - This is the article about St Pete in general, not about all aspects of the City's life . (Hellinalj (talk) 12:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC))
Gay culture in Russia is rare, except in these two major cities. I feel it would be a good idea to note that, and to have any available statistics about the number of gays and lesbians. I'm not asking to add a whole section, but it seems just as relevant as the racial stats or the mention of shared flats and should be noted. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "Demoscape0163" :
    • Чистякова Н. [http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2004/0163/tema01.php Третье сокращение численности населения... и последнее?] ''Демоскоп Weekly'' 163 — 164, August 1-15, 2004.
    • Чистякова Н. [http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2004/0163/tema01.php Третье сокращение численности населения... и последнее?] ''Демоскоп Weekly'' 163 – 164, August 1-15, 2004.

DumZiBoT (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports in St. Petersburg

Why is there a separate article link (a "Main article: Sport in Saint Petersburg" link)? If you follow that link it's the exact same text as what appears on this article. The only difference is a couple different links and a different picture of the stadium. I feel like the separate article is unnecessary unless it adds something.Deleteyourself16 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mariinsky Original Tsars Box.JPG

The image Image:Mariinsky Original Tsars Box.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Europe's fourth largest city?

What about Istanbul? It is listed in Wikipedia as having more than 11 million inhabitants which would put it before London. -- 92.230.31.23 (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to this article, Istanbul seems to be the third largest city on Earth if taking the population of the city itself and that of the metropolitan area into account. That means that according to the figure given in the article cited above, Istanbul would be the largest city in Europe, even surpassing London, Moscow and Paris. So, either the Petersburg article is talking about the population of the city proper and using the same rationale for Istanbul, or the person who wrote that statement did not view Istanbul as a European city. I'll leave that to others to decide... Vargher (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any data available on the division of Istanbul population between the Asian and the European part of the city? --Humanophage (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

Let me analyze each of the links there. There are different type of trivia and I a msimply against the removal of the whole section. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have checked each link in the three bullet point "see also" section, I think they are very valid to stay as they are: a "see also". Why do you want to remove them? Don't you think that anyone really interested in Saint Petersburg will want to hear about the treaties signed on it? Or maybe go a collect a unique coin that celebrates its 300th anniversary? They are just links, and the section is very small, I do not see the need of a complete removal. Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Unique??? Here are other commemorative coins dedicated to the same event: ru:300-летие основания Санкт-Петербурга. And the article is not about the 300th anniversary of the city, it is about the city itself. Colchicum (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my three years of Russian in high school were not enough to be able to read the article you posted. Don't you really think that a single line to talk about 300 years anniversary celebration is worth to be mentioned? Not even in the See also section?
About the anniversary -- maybe. But not about a coin dedicated to the anniversary, not even in the see also section. Colchicum (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, the information about the commemorative coin and Ves Petersburg is not encyclopedic for this article. Neither the coin nor the directory is unique. Why is it singled out? Because some time ago the authors of the pages in question decided to spam this article in order to get incoming links. If we systematically include such information, the article will be several GB long. The Treaty of Saint Petersburg is merely a disambiguation page and the link certainly shouldn't be there. Colchicum (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
That is WP:POV, I believe each link there is valid and I do not see the reason of removal of such a small section. What is the "see also" section for then? Why do you mean by "is not encyclopedic"? They are just links related to the current article; if they were not encyclopedic those linked articles should be removed. Try to understand that we have any sort of readers in Wikipedia, people with different ages, cultural backgrounds, appetite for information ... etc. For you the list of treaties may sound obvious, for others may not; and again it is a simple link so readers have more information about this city. I really do not understand what is the whole deal and why you want to remove it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Saint Petersburg is the 4th largest city in Europe, there are billions of notable facts related to Saint Petersburg. Not all of them merit inclusion, however. Colchicum (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, that is WP:POV, they are just links to valid facts and does deserve to be mentioned. If you want to continue to remove the whole section, and since it seems like we are going to reach no agreement, you will have to build WP:consensus. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:POV is what you are trying to do: to single out these facts from among bilions of others. Colchicum (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested comment on Wikipedia policy or guidelines for this section.
Within one hour this page will be placed on the {{RFCpolicy list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


We have not reached any WP:consensus on this topic. Please stop removing content that others think is valuable. I am open for a discussion here. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Others? So far you have been the only one who thinks that it should be kept. Here is your discussion, above. You have refused to discuss the isuues. Thanks. Colchicum (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The information was there, and you removed it, I am against it, what consensus is that so you keep removing it? Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You didn't have any consensus to add your information, did you? I removed it, Russavia removed it, others will remove it. Colchicum (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
To make the things clear, the information wasn't there, you have created Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Finland) and have been insisting that it be placed in the See also section. You need a consensus to keep it there, the same with Amorfati00 (talk · contribs) and Ves Petersburg. Colchicum (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You removed the whole section, that was there when I started to look over the article. I added one sentence, and you are not talking about that particular sentence. you have not even mentioned to remove just my contributions. You are just reverting everything I do here, including trying to keep the whole "see also" section. You conversation with your friend is not cool either. And this conversation will be going no where if you are not willing to compromise. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, this is a blatant lie. Russavia is not my friend, I contacted him after he had edited out the section independently of me. I have never reverted your edits, I have only trimmed down the section, because its content was inappropriate. I don't care about your edits in general. And you are not willing to compromise, you, Miguel. You just blindly defend your position. Colchicum (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum asked me to comment on the situation, so here are my two cents. As WP:SEEALSO states, the primary reason of the "See also" section is to collect relevant links that would otherwise be incorporated into the article's body were the article to be perfect. "See also" sections are normally used in less developed articles and provide useful pointers to the directions into which the article should eventually expand. Saint Petersburg, undoubtedly, is not a perfect article, but it can hardly be classified as "less developed". It is not that difficult to incorporate whatever links appear in the "see also" section into the text. Treaties should be covered in the History section (or, better yet, in History of Saint Petersburg, as the History section is meant to be a general overview). The coin reference can go altogether (it is no more special than hundreds of other similar coins), or be moved to the article about the city's 300th anniversary. The list of consulates is already linked to from the article (although I would question that the lead is the best place for it), so it should be removed per WP:SEEALSO as well. I am not sure where a link to Ves Petersburg would fit best, but the article about the city's history seems a fairly adequate place. So on and so forth. The bottom line is that at this point the article is surely long enough that we don't have to clutter it with random links in the "See also" section, because it is not that difficult to introduce those links from the appropriate portions of the article (or its subarticles).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to post my opinion here, but won't as it mirrors Laski's Ezhiki's opinion perfectly. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly the type of discussion that I am looking for, this is the type of discuussion that I have insisted to have every time I revert your removals; and this is exactly the way to compromise, not by just removing the whole section. If the problem is the name "See also" then let's call it something else, like "other topics". But you and I know that would not make sense either. I have no issue applying for the changed that Ezhiki sugested; but I am sure that if I do you will revert them again. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Same as Russavia, Ezhiki's has expressed it very well, the links need to be added to the relevant articles instead of piled up on the "see also" section (simply renaming to "other topics" doesn't help, as it's just like adding a "trivia" or a "in popular culture" section).
About the coin, I'll say it doesn't like like a notable coin. Miguel, you have been very involved on the finnish coin article, this creates you a bit of conflict of interest and affects your view on whether links to that article should be added or not (this is just an observation, please don't take this as an offence). Please back from the dispute and let other editors decide it if the link should stay. If it's really relevant to the article, it will eventually be added. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I know I am one of the main contributors to the Finnish article, that is not my point, if the consensus is "the coin is not relevant" it will be gone, period, I have no issues with that. This is not what I am standing for here. The whole "See also" section was removed without consensus, it is still removed, and those links that IMO are very relevant to Saint Petersburg are no longing showing; and as expected, I went to sleep and no one did the changes suggested to include them back in the article.
If there is a team of editors that carefully watch an article and they decided what information fits in and what doesn't, for me that is also consensus. But this is not the case here. Go to the article history and find out in the last month or so who has been one of the most active editors removing vandalisms or challenging unsourced material. So if at least four people are OK to have the whole "see also" section removed (against my opinion), I have no problems with that either, and I no longer see the need for me to watch over the article as I have done for more than a month now.
End results:
  • Consensus is "no see also" section, links no longer shown.
  • There is a good team of people watching over this article.
  • I am no longer part of that team, hence will not get involved with this article anymore (since obviously my opinion is not valid).
Good luck and regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ezhiki. See also should be used sparingly especially for the top level articles as Saint Petersburg, otherwise we could seealso half of wikipedia. We have categories, we have daughter articles, we can put links in the text; see also is actually a line of last rezerve. IMHO only the three lists should be left as now and in future all of them should be incorporated into the text Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] list of consulates is unnecessary and adds too many images

So, I removed the sister city list because it was too long (see Talk:Saint_Petersburg#merge_of_list_of_sister_cities_of_saint_petersburg) and now a consulate list has appeared. The list adds nothing to the encyclopedic value of the article, it's non-notable, and, apparently, the city itself considers it of so little importance that has not listed its consulates on any official page. That St. Petersburg has a lot of consulates is probably notable because of whatever the reason that they decided to put make so many of them. However, listing every single consulate is plain useless, wastes spaces, and adds dozens of small images to the load of the page, which burdens users with slow connexions (each image is an extra connection to the server). We should apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Do_not_use_too_many_icons (previously known as WP:FLAGCRUFT) and remove the list from the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, a small paragraph mentioning how may consulates and a link to a new article "List of consulates in Saint_Petersburg" would do in my opinion. However, do not remove the list, let's just move itt. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Good idea with making a separate article, that will solve the problem of having too many images on this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I hope is better now ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Much better. It still needs cleanup for compliance with the manual of style guideline at WP:SEEALSO --Enric Naval (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The list has existed for a long time at Diplomatic missions in Russia, and we don't cover honorary consulates, so I have redirected the list. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Saw the change, makes absolute perfect sense to me. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] O, soviet mio!

Are there any gondoliers in Leningrad? How long are the canals frozen every year? 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL No, there are no gondoliers in Leningrad Petersburg. Nobody just don't thought about it never. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.93.176.70 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Página espejo de la Wikipedia
Directorio de Enlaces Directorio dmoz Directorio espejo dmoz Pedro Bernardo