Talk:Moscow/Archive 2

message: :As to the independent cinema theatres - I didn't reinsert the paragraph because I didn't really understand what you're referring to. What do you mean by independent cinema theaters - independent from whom?  For example, in the US independent theaters are independent from large chains, e.g. Century. In this sense most of the movie theaters in Moscow are independent, AFAIK. Or did you mean the theaters that show independent films? Again, I'm not quite sure which films are considered independent, Musei Kino (Cinema Museum) is probably the most famous theater for showing non-mainstream movies. Basically, there's no questions about neutrality of that paragraph, but I think it needs more clarity. 
:PS. I removed the article text you copied here, a link is perfectly sufficient. Azov 08:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In Moscow, one-screen movie theaters are being replaced by the American-style multiplexes, which are setting the trend for all over Russia. ... There are four privately owned Russian movie theater networks, including Imperia Kino, Karo Film, Kinomax and the Union of Independent Theaters. This year American National Amusement company started to actively work on the Russian market. National Amusement has ambitious plans to open several movie theaters in Moscow totaling 60 screens in the next four years. ... American-made films completely dominate Russian movie screens accounting for about 80-90%. Box office collections generated from showing U.S. movies double each year, starting from $10 million in 1999, increasing to over $20 million in 2000, and reaching $40 million in 2001. In the first six months of 2002, American movies have already made more than $40 million. -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness, the same situation applies to most of the world. The only countries that have lower precentage of movies from the US are those that have laws enforcing it, such as Korea, France and Venesuela. In Ireland, I'd say the precentage of US films shown is far above 90%, and the precentage of foriegn films is certainly 100% most years. The UK market is dominated by US film, miltiplex chains, with few independent films shown in small cimenas in town centers. There is a current example of the French documentary "La Marche de l'empereur" took a year to cross La Manche, and first had to take a detour to the US and pick up a voice-over by Morgan Freeman. In light of this, 80-90% in Russia is not bad. Remember, these films are not being imposed on the Russians. They like them. Seabhcán 09:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: That's all totally beside the point isn't it? I said that there were few independent theatres in Moscow, I didn't make any speculations on the character or tastes of Moscow audiences. It's important to bring this up because Moscow had, despite censorship and various extreme interferences from the government, a thriving cinematic culture in the Soviet era. -- Simonides 08:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point? Moscow still has a thriving cinematic culture, but now its Hollywood films that thrive there. Fashons come and go. In ten years Moscovites may have become bored by hollywood remakes and the cinemas might be showing all Russian films. Or maybe Bollywood or Nollywood will be the 'in' thing then. We get few non American films in the UK but "Night Watch" is currently drawing large crowds. How do you measure "thriving"? More people go to the cinema more often in Moscow now than in Soviet times. Just because you and I think the films they choose to watch are crap, doesn't mean there is anything not 'thriving' about Moscow cinemas.Seabhcán 10:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Once again, you don't understand. There was a thriving NATIVE cinematic culture previously - ie Soviets watching Soviet films. Also, a lot of popular films would be broadcast repeatedly on TV, so most movie or TV loving Russians brought up in the Soviet era know most of their national classics well, whereas the younger audiences know much more about Hollywood. This is not a judgement on fashions or what is better. The fact is that Russian studios that were very prolific, Russian content, and also non-mainstream content from overseas, have all been on the decline in the market, and that's all the article is saying. -- Simonides 10:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still loads of Russian films on tv and in the cinemas. Irony of Fate is still shown every new years eve. There are Russian films on every night on TV. There are also French, German, US and other films. I don't see the harm. To increase the precentage of Russian films in the cinemas Russia could impose a law mandating a certain percentage. France, Korea and other countries has been sucessful with this. But personally, I don't think its needed. Like all industry in Russia, the movie industry is quickly building its self up following the economic disaster of the 90's. Seabhcán 10:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Good, great, excellent. No one is disputing what you say so I'm not sure why you continue on your tangent. The article says a few things - Mosfilm was the home of many classics, it implies that Soviet film was very popular (as opposed to being, say, unpopular propaganda), Russian filmmakers are still famous outside Russia, Mosfilm produces a lot less, independent cinema is relatively scarce in Moscow, all of which are true and none of which contradict anything you said. -- Simonides 11:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your data is quite outdated. Russia in general and Mosfilm in particular produces more films than the whole Soviet Union in its best years. During the last year, the Russian boxoffice record was broken three times: first by Night Watch, then by a Fandorin movie, and now by the Ninth Detachment. No Hollywood movie has been able to achieve better results. And The Day Watch opens in theatres on January 1! --Ghirlandajo 13:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't find any data supporting what you said about Mosfilm's production increasing between 2002 (when it was 5-6 times less than a decade previous to that) and 2005, so if you can link it for us, we can certainly correct the article accordingly. Also, some Russian films may be more profitable than American films, but I was speaking of trends, and the majority of the Russian market is still dominated by American or non-Russian films; between 70-90% of films screened at any time are American or non-Russian. -- Simonides 13:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently, there are 35 motion pictures being simultaneously produced in the Mosfilm. What is more improtant, most Russians have a habit of watching new films on TV, and 70-90% of TV series are Russian.  --Ghirlandajo 13:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We're not talking about TV series or TV watching habits at all. They did influence the number of visitors to the cinema over the years, but we're not mentioning the influential factors anywhere; we're just noting the trends. There may be X no. of motion pictures being made now, but what I want to know is whether 1) Mosfilm, as you claim, currently releases more films annually than it did around 1991, when the figure reached around 300; in 2002 it was only around 50-60; 2) the majority of films being screened in theatres in Moscow is Russian. The answer to the latter is pretty definitely no, you aren't showing me any evidence on the former point. Notice I only say "once prolific native studios are much quieter" in the article - I don't even mention Lenfilm or Mosfilm etc individually - so if you have any facts contrary to the statement, and pertinent, please bring them up. -- Simonides 14:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that state owned and run Mosfilm was 'independent'? Independent of what? Seabhcán 13:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Seabhcan - I am not sure what your agenda is, but can you stop to read before coming up with fanciful objections? Mosfilm was a government-supervised STUDIO so of course it wasn't independent. However, I was never speaking of the independence of studios, I wrote THEATRES. Between the fall of the Soviet Union and the present state of things, there were briefly more independent theatres than there are now, and no matter which way you argue it, on a PARALLEL note, Russians were watching more Russian content in  theatres, than they are now. It doesn't matter how bad or good the latter was. In fact a lot of Russian cinema from just after the fall was really bad - done on low budgets and in imitation of American movies. But once again, no judgements on quality are being made here. So what exactly is your point? -- Simonides 13:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, you're saying that during soviet times there was a higher percentage of Russian films shown, which has declined steadily to today's percentage of 10%-20%. Seperately, during soviet times there were of course no independent theatres, but shortly after there were many, and this number has also been declining since to a present low number. Is this a correct summary of your statements? If so, I agree. Seabhcán 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes! If you think the passage in the article is not clear enough on the same points you're welcome to insert an alternative. I'll give it a tweak too. -- Simonides 14:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent movie theaters 

message: 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)
replies: text: “Stalinist Architecture,” originated after Stalin visited New York, when he was so enamored with the Municipal Building he insisted on that wedding-cake style of architecture for Moscow University’s main building and its accompanying “Seven Sisters.”  and "The Municipal Building in downtown New York impressed Josef Stalin so much that the Moscow University main building (1949-1953) and its accompanying "Seven Sisters" was later based on it" . The sources could be wrong, of course. -- Simonides 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is called original research, and it is inacceptable in Wiki. We have extensive articles on Stalinist architecture and Seven Sisters (Moscow), which cite Kremlin towers, Moscow baroque, and medieval Gothic cathedrals among possible inspirations for this particular extravagant form of scyscraper. Using a NYC website as an ultimate truth doesn't help: they are obviously biased. I don't know why you chose to delete the links to these articles and insert the third interpretation of the same subject. As an aside, I've never heard about Stalin's visit to New York, but this could be just my ignorance. --Ghirlandajo 09:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it is not original research, as I saw it mentioned in a book once and wrote the whole section on Architecture from memory. I corrected stuff as I went along, so if you go through the edit history you will notice I mentioned the Novy Arbat project was designed by a French architect, who I am certain was mentioned in some book I read, but the only reference I could find was Mikhail Posokhin, so I switched the two; likewise I mistakenly called the Ostankino Tower the Shukhov Tower at first, and so on. There were no 'previous links' to those articles, as there was no previous section on architecture, so I am not sure what you are on about. There were always links to Moscow Tourist Attractions and no one removed them. What you did was delete the whole Architecture section and replace it with links that already appeared below. Maybe I should quote that part of Wikipedia that says such silly oversights are unacceptable. The links above were brought up only after I was asked for a reference, and I have never read elsewhere that Stalin visited NYC, so I could be wrong too. -- Simonides 12:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stalin never been in the US. This is a mistake.--Nixer 20:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, it hasn't been in the article for almost a week, so you can relax. -- Simonides 08:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The article is now citing the wrong building in NYC.  Nixer edited the text (Jan 21 10:16) to say that Stalin was allegedly inspired by [photographs of?] the Empire State Building, rather than the Municipal Building in New York.  I see no basis for that revision.  Various web pages do allege that the Municipal Building was an inspiration for the Seven Sisters.  I know of no such claim about the Empire State Building.  The reference should be changed back. -- David Cohen 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry. I never heared of Municipal building. I thought it is another name for Empire State Building. Stalin (or Kaganovich) said that Soviet skyscrapers will not be like American. American ones are very tall but have relatively small land basis because high land value. Soviet highrise buildings will not be limites by high land values so they should be more proportional, rational and estetic.--Nixer 18:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of anything *proving* the link, but here are a few web pages claiming it or speculating on it, which thus back up the limited statement that the Seven Sisters were *allegedly* modeled on New York's Municipal Building (arch. McKim, Mead & White 1914).  This one assembles a few links (no more than circumstantial evidence), but in the comments someone replied that "It's definitely the Architecture of New York college class line that the Municipal (Building) was copied, with varying degrees of faithfulness, throughout the Eastern bloc."  A New York architecture page asserts that Stalin based his skyscrapers on the Municipal Building.  And this forum has a discussion accompanied by a slew of photographs connecting these and many more buildings with some common elements.  I'll let you all decide whether that's enough to justify removing the "citation needed" tag.  -- David Cohen 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild fantasies 

message: 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)
replies: text: Not really Nixter. It is owned by media concern - Gazprom-media. 95% Gazprom-media shares owning by Gazprombank. Where 33,3% of Gazprombank owning by Dresdner Bank and 66,67% by Gazprom.Elk Salmon 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NTV 

message: 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)
replies: text: ok. in the west of the Russian Federation sounds less abusive. i'll make article on geography and geology of moscow sometime later. so this string could be removed. but anyway. according to constitution of russia, paragraph 1 point 2 - Russia and Russian Federation names are equivalent. but, Olorin28, you still didn't answered question - why not European instead of western since it is same. First is more politcorrect.Elk Salmon 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because this is not a political question? Olorin28 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's same for you. There is source it is synonym for you. Why can' you use it? Elk Salmon 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the term "Western Russia" has absolutely nothign to do with politics. However, the compromise by Robdurbar is good. Olorin28 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you understand me? I'm asking why do you again European Russia instead of western? Elk Salmon 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  European Russia is a political entity, something you should have learned from reading the above comments. Olorin28 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  European Russia is what located to west of Siberia for you known. I first time hear about political entity European Russia.... Elk Salmon 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: i will not answer for insults Elk Salmon 13:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Moscow is in Central Russia. It is located in the Central Russian Plain.--Nixer 11:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to live in central London. Does that mean I lived in the centre of the UK? James James 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside responses to RfC

message: 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)
replies: text: This is not mystery airport. It is Khodynka filed. Airport was closed in 60's during Moscow expanding. From 60's to 90's was used as racing circuit. Currently this area is under development. Several residential complexes now almost completed. Center of this area supposedly will be using by park and north part by several stadiums and huge museum as i remember. Elk Salmon 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Elk!  I wish I'd known about the place when I was in Moscow, the museum looks like an interesting tour (although some sites say it's now closed).209.47.162.98 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is also a hidden motro station under the airfield. I could be open if become necessary. See here: :ru:Волоколамская (станция метро, Таганско-Краснопресненская линия).--Nixer 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way I think there is already a page on Tushino airfield(present name).--Nixer 17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These are two different fields. --Gene s 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to a Google map above shows Tushino airfield definitely. There a number of military airplanes are visible also.--Nixer 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia article for Tushino links a google map of a very different place (river on one side).  I did many google searches for "Khodynka" and came across no references to Khodynka and Tushino being the same place.Burtonpe 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Field on google maps is Khodynka. Afaik there is some kind of meuseum of aeronautics or something like that. They plans to build huge building. Tushino still working for helicopters and small jets. Elk Salmon 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mystery Airport

message: Ghirlandajo, please do not revert. What do not you agree?--Nixer 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it's you who introduce controversial edits, it's for you to explain why you consider "Beliy" a better transliteration than "Bely" and why you insist that "Caucasians" are accosted thrice a day. I believe the latter passage reeks of original research and should be removed. As to the former, check the transliteration rules. Finally, I don't think the article is the proper place for spamlinks to all the websites of Russian media. Take care, --Ghirla | talk 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not revert 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sports 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: 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 ) and world gazetteer (define 14,5mln population for moscow agglomeration ). Another, Russian source, is a book Social-Economical regionalisation of Russia  (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)
thread_title:  Moscow agglomeration 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think there is no such thing as "greater Moscow". The boundaries of the city are clear and it is surrounded with rural areas and several smaller (but independent) cities and towns.--Nixer 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, would you be willing to finally get rid of the Greater Moscow "article"?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greater Moscow is not exist of course. It is just an agglomeration. I was talking about it in previous paragraph. Elk Salmon 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: btw, here is what Greater Moscow . Just old (1921) plan of expanding. Elk Salmon 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you would then be interested in deleting/re-writing that pity of a stub?  And thanks for the link—it's very educational and can probably be used as a basis for a new Greater Moscow article.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just made new article. Elk Salmon 12:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: metro area

message: $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) .
:If you ask me, this information belongs in a tour guide book, not in an encyclopedia.  Prices change every day, who cares?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dining Costs 

message: It is not a seal but coat of arms.--Nixer 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal 

message: Should we have a chapter about industry?--Nixer 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Perhaps we could also merge some of the information from the Living Costs section to form an Economy section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry 

message: The point of the  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  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)
replies: text: Also, we should really shy away from sources in Russian. I noticed that someone had an edit summary that removed a  template saying because information about the number of cars within the city was available at this website. However it, of course, is in Russian. As the English Wikipedia, we should strive to find sources in English. And as a side note, that website should have been cited (I added the citation, although I hope we can find an English source with the same information). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joturner, Moscow located in Russia. And official language in Russia is Russian. Not English. Therefore you will not find any reliable source in English. Mos.ru is official site of Moscow Administration. All you can do is ask Russians in Russia Portal for help with a sources. Elk Salmon 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the way we should approach this. Certainly the official site of Moscow will prove to be an important resource (at least for you as I don't know Russian), but it would be preferable to find English-language sources that say the same thing. It doesn't matter that Moscow is in a Russian-speaking country; this is the English Wikipedia and so English is the language we should be looking for. Note that Belgium, which has a featured article, is a Dutch-, French-, and German-speaking country and yet the article for the country doesn't have a single non-English reference. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How can there be too many sources? Looking at the sources you indicated, I don't see a problem. More sources is always better, as long as they're correct and reliable. All of those sources are correct, reliable, and helpful in validating subjects that don't come to mind easily. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of {{t1|fact}}s and references 

message: 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)
replies: text: disagree. having small gallery some 4x4 photos, or 4x5 is very good. Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not a respository of images; if the images have encyclopedia value in the article, they can remain as parts of sections. However, the Moscow article is not the place for people to store photographs of the city, no matter have beautiful they may look. Galleries just don't look good in featured articles. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: disagree also. one picture is better than a hundreed of words. this allows reader to imagine the city. this gallery does not make the article a repository of images as it spreads on not more then 1/6 of the article.--Nixer 23:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: well, same table is in nyc article. it is understable. Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This item can be probably be crossed out because the rate has been clarified. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: disagree Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Sources help may the article more credible. See why sources should be cited. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: i just took krylatskoye this sunday. i'll add later when will process all photos. Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be an image of the newly-reconstructed Lokomotiv stadium would be good also.--Nixer 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List Comments 

message: I see this nonsence got its way into wikipedia as well (removed).
:Сорок — «множество» (как «тьма» — 10 тысяч). Сорок сороков относилось не к церквам, а к всемосковскому крестному ходу, который устраивался по особо торжественным случаям. Клир и прихожане шли своими районами, которые и назывались «сороками». А каждая приходская церковь принадлежала по повелению Стоглавого собора 1551 г. к какому-либо району — «сороку». Это районирование на районы отошло в прошлое, а выражение «сорок сороков» осталось в народной памяти как воспоминание о том времени, когда в Москве было множество церквей
`'mikka (t) 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone please translate this into English? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Sorok (literally means 40 in Russian) means "multitude" < in archaic usage > (like "tma" ("darkness") is 10,000). Sorok sorokov refers not to churches, but to the All-Moscow Holy Cross procession (всемосковский крестный ход) carried out on especially solemn occasions. The clergy and parishioners walked in procession according to their districts known as soroks < e.g. Никитский сорок, Сретенский сорок, Пречистенский сорок, Ивановский сорок, Замоскворецкий сорок, Китайский сорок >   According to a decree of the Stoglavy Sobor < literally: "Hundred-chapter Sobor" >> of 1551, every parochial church was assigned to a certain district called sorok. This administrative partitioning has long become obsolete, and the expression "sorok sorokov" remained in the memories of the people as a reference to the times where there were multitudes of churches in Moscow. < in fact, the expression "sorok sorokov" is used in the meaning "great multitudes" in a number of unrelated archaic russian expressions. And "sorok sorokov" in application to Moscow is yet another blunder: it is brainless truncation of a standard say "There are sorok sorokov churches" (Сорок сороков церквей) when spoken about Moscow > 
BTW, you have a couple of red links to kill here... `'mikka (t) 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorok sorokov 

message: 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)
replies: text: And also the geography section seems very far down in the article. It talks about the climate and the city plan, two basic facets of the city. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And unless more can be said about the environment (and ecology in general) in Moscow, Ecology should not be a header. I do, however, agree that more can be said about air pollution in Moscow. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the 1980 Olympics 

message: In case there are any questions, I'm re-adding the sources (but not the  templates) accidentally lost during this edit. Sorry about that, I reverted a little too far back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-adding Mistakenly Removed Sources 

message: 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)
:The difference is due to the fact that the English version describes administrative divisions and the Russian version describes municipal entities.  Municipal entities are formed on the basis of the administrative ones.  Ideally, there should be two sets of articles, but I just don't want to get involved with all that municipal reform stuff, not yet, anyway.  If someone feels up to that challenge, go ahead.  The bottom line is that Administrative divisions of Moscow does not need to be changed, but we could use Municipalities of Moscow and cross-reference it with ru-wiki properly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administrative terminology about Moscow city 

message: This...
:A taxi from Sheremetyevo International Airport will cost the non-Russian speaking traveller upwards of $150; the Russian speaking foreigner will be charged US$30-US$40. The native Moscow dweller will negotiate the price to $15-20 or will avoid the taxi rank altogether and take a marshrutka (shuttle, shared taxi) to the nearest metro station for about a dollar
...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)
replies: text: I removed the section for now as it is obviously original research. Reputable taxi companies will have a fixed rate as several websites indicate, but I assume the negotiating can take place with private drivers not affiliated with a major company. In that case a native could obviously bargain easier, but that's just my speculation.  TSO1D 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a bargain is certainly possible, but in my view, this kind of information is only suitable for a tourist guide, not for an encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research? 

message: I noticed User:TSO1D removed the gallery of images, while User:Nixer put it back. Repeating what I said earlier...
:Wikipedia is not a respository of images; if the images have encyclopedia value in the article, they can remain as parts of sections. However, the Moscow article is not the place for people to store photographs of the city, no matter how beautiful they may look. Galleries just don't look good in featured articles.
I still hold that view; the gallery should not be in the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only removed the gallery becuase that was one of the items on the to do list, I was under the impression that there was no opposition to completing those tasks. Now that I look at the page, it makes sense to replace the pictures with a link to Commons. At this moment they take up too much space in the middle of the article without being of use to anyone. Maybe if some users want to keep it, it can be greatly reduced and added to the end of the article, although I still recommend removing the pictures altogether. TSO1D 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no item to remove the gallery in the toto list. There is an item to remove the list of tourist attractions.--Nixer 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is. It's the first item. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And regardles of that list, in my view the article looks more ungainly with the large gallery in the middle of it. I propose removing it for both aesthetic and practical reasons. Also, very few other articles about cities use such galleries. Look at Saint Petersburg or London, or Berlin, or Paris, or any other such articles. There is no need to make an exception here. TSO1D 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And no featured city article has a similar gallery either: see Kolkata, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Johannesburg. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the Gallery 

message: 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?
:Yes. You may of course rephrase the sentence.--Nixer 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cristal champaigne is not related to the Moscow Cristall distillery. It even does not produce vines.--Nixer 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the clarification. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Recent Edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Living Costs 

message: Climate section in other articles about cities is always in the bottom of the article--Nixer 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not true. Once again, see Kolkata, Hong Kong, Mumbai, and Johannesburg (all featured articles). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate 

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right. Since you haven't gotten to it, I'll refactor the sentence. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ZiL and AZLK are companies not plants, so I changed the sentence to "Automobile plants for ZiL and AZLK..." -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction ZiL appears to be a company while AZLK appears to be the factory. Am I misreading something in the ZiL article? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind completely, you're correct. I misread both of the articles. This edit/version of yours looks fine for that part. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both abbreviatures means factories. ZiL = Zavod imeni Likhacheva (Plant named after Likhachev), AZLK = Avtomobilniy Zavod imeni Leninskogo Komsomola (Plant named after Lenin's Komsomol). --Nixer 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voitovich 

message: The city plans are outdated. I recommend to move them into the History of Moscow article.--Nixer 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the maps are to show the concentric circles formed by the roads. Clearly, those are there. If we can find a free updated map, that would be wonderful, but I imagine that coming up with decent rationale for using an unfree map as fair-use is going to be tough considering we already have two free Moscow maps. But I don't want to discourage you from looking for a free map or uploading a more modern map of Moscow under fair use. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The city plans 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think it should go under Education. If you add a Science section, it may work as a subsection of Education or a subsection of Culture, depending on how you write it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it doesn't seem to have a close relation to education, since this is a state library and not public. State libraries generally have more relation to science. It's not exactly one or another, but I'd rather add it to science. That's just an opinion. Considering the general science section, it deserves to be separate, as Moscow is (or was) one of the prime science centers, though library info is not enough. CP/M 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with CP/M--Nixer 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need your opinion 

message: I suggest the supporters' violence to move into crime section, and expand the sports chapter.--Nixer 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My suggestion 

message: TSO1D, why did you changed all center words to centre?--Nixer 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can change it back to center if you want. The reason was that one of the links had the word center and that was a redirect to the centre version as it is a European city. And as the city pertains to Europe, I thought it was better to use the British version of the word (I didn't have time to change the rest). If you don't like it, it can be changed back instantly. TSO1D 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would better to bring back. There is no official English dialect in Moscow.--Nixer 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: British English rather then US English is by far the predominate version used by Russians in Moscow so I don't see the need to change it back Spartaz 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you know it from? I always write "center" and nearly nowhere can see the word "centre".--Nixer 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about common usage, but in official context, the word centre is usually used. The All Russian Exhibition Centre site for instance uses it among many others. TSO1D 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Centre is British spelling, Center - American. I believe English Wikipedia has a policy that either British or American dialect is fine, but it has to be used consistently - i.e. no mixing British & American in the same article. Since the article about Moscow uses American spelling, I suggest that you change it back to Center. Azov 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I changed it back for consistency but remember we can still make it consistent by changing everything to British spelling! TSO1D 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centre 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dining Section? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oppose. Geogrphy section does not need 3 sub-sections. Small paragraph about climate is enough. City plan can be moved into architecture section. Visual and performing arts needs expansion into Museums and galleries and Teaters and operas. New section Parks and recreation zones should be created of Tourism. Anyway industry and tourism should not preceed museums and theaters. Architecture should be placed in the beginning.--Nixer 05:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, why should the city plan be moved to architecture instead of geography, it is much more relevant to the latter. As for the architecture section, why should it be placed in the beginning? Almost all articles on cities have first introduce geography, then history, leaving architecture until the end. As for having the culture section preceed the industry section, I agree with that. TSO1D 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Sections 

message: I feel demographics is more relevant to education, dont you think so?--Nixer 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Demographics are (or is?) basic information about the city (breakdown of ethnicities, growth rate, etc) and, in my opinion, belongs in its own section, somewhere near the top. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: "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)
replies: text: 8470 thousand is 8.4 million. I'm not sure why it says it like that though (perhaps it's regional like billion (US) equaling thousand million (Britain)). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  social aspects, wtf? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Multiple refs 

message: 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)
replies: text: What are you talking about? TSO1D 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you don't like my edits does not mean that it's vandalism. Can you explain why you think demographics should be so far down in the article? I can comprimise on the crime section, but I don't understand the demographics section. And can you also explain why you removed the Culture section? The stuff about galleries and theaters are very closely related. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Culture because the other city articles contain separate sections for architecture, museums and theaters. I dont understand why city architecture should go under the same section as theaters. And I was also inspired with Berlin article. As about demographics - we can place it after economy (as in London article), after sports or before or after education. --Nixer 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles you mentioned have Culture sections. Leaving the architecture section out may be okay, but the museum and galleries sections should be merged. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop vandalizing the article! 

message: 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)
replies: text: And you insisted we can place the images from the gallery into the article's body! To immediately delete them?!! Now I corrected the layout. If you feel a section is overcrowded with images, please try to expand the section, not to delete the images.--Nixer 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, you didn't correct the layout (I don't see a recent edit). Also, I didn't say that we should move all the images from the gallery to the body, just a few important ones, and as space permits. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Image from [[Moscow#Demographics|#Demographics]] 

message: I'm trying to shy away from the  tags, unless absolutely necessary. And so, here are the rationales for the  tags:
* "Moscow is home to more Olympic champions than any other city in the world." - clearly this is not just common knowledge
*:Probably this can be derived from articles about the champions.--Nixer 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{t1|fact}} Rationales 

message: Fair use images must serve a specific purpose:
# to illustrate the work or product in question;
# in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose;
# on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,
There are three options for number one, regarding what the image illustrates:
# The image is being used to illustrate the North River Terminal
#* However, this is not a valid reason because the article is about Moscow. The North River Terminal is only tangentially related to Moscow and not necessary.
# If the image is being used to illustrate transport in Moscow
#* However, this fails criteria number two for fair-use images as there are free images available to illustrate transportation in Moscow (they're in the article already).
# If the image is being used to illustrate Moscow
#* Same as above; there are many free images illustrating Moscow.
As a result, the image does not belong in the Moscow article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article is minimally related to the terminal. That reason is not good enough. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is used to illustrate the North River Terminal regardless about what the article as whole.--Nixer 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The guideline for fair use of publicity images says, "to illustrate the work or product in question", not "to illustrate the work or product in question in an article solely about the work or product". Since it is used to illustrate the work, it's fine here. That rationale would not be appropriate if the image were used to demonstrate a particular photographic technique, or to illustrate the quantity of boat traffic on the river, etc. --MCB 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Srv2.jpg]] 

message: *as a result of the large Irish precense in Moscow
Where did that guy get this delirium from? Is it original research or simply wild fantasies?--Nixer 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't me; go ahead and remove it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind; I took care of it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It must have been a joke, the census shows that there are less than five Irishmen. Must have been quite a parade!. TSO1D 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another strange sentence 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kremlin is not the seat of the Russian government 

message: 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)
replies: text: I will not oppose you if you decide to delete it, but now it looks OK for me.--Nixer 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: Please expand the section, not delete images. You're doing what is easier, not what is better for the article. I think the image of the tallest building in Europe should exist anyway.--Nixer 14:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Demographics sections tend to be short as there really isn't a whole lot to say. As far as I can see, there's not much else we can say here unless we merge the somewhat related Crime section into the Demographics section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add data on age of population, religious composition, birth rates, migration etc.--Nixer 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this obsession with the pictures. There's not a single corner of the article where a user can read valuable information without being cramped by pictures wherever possible or impossible. At least if the pictures were relevant to the particular passages I could understand, but they are simply views of Moscow from different areas, and this is in addition to the mammoth gallery in the middle. There is absolutely no reason to expand any section just to accomodate some random and unnecessary pictures. TSO1D 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait I'll add much information to the article, so it will be place for the pictures.--Nixer 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Images in the [[Moscow#Demographics|Demographics]] Section 

message: ===Survey===
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?
===Oppose (Keep the Gallery)===
# Oppose. Because these pictures give a reader the overall impression of the city and its architecture. I believe one picture is better then a hundreed of words. Moscow has many buildings and other objects important enough to be placed in the article and we do not have enough room to place them outside the gallery. The gallery is relevant to the architecture section. Most of these images cannot be placed in commons because of copyright issues. The gallery inspired many authors to contribute to the article.--Nixer 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know I am also against the gallery altogether, but there is opposition to its removal. As a result, the only other possibility I see is some form of a compromise. TSO1D 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article ever goes up for featured status, the inclusion of the gallery anywhere in this article would almost certainly prevent it from becoming featured (people will ask for it to be removed). If this could pass an FAC without objections over the gallery, then that's wonderful; I would have no problem with the gallery then. But I'm seriously doubting that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can temporary remove the gallery when nominating the article.--Nixer 18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recommend you to do that. It expresses extreme bad faith. CG 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll 

message: # Oppose. Because these pictures give a reader the overall impression of the city and its architecture. I believe one picture is better then a hundreed of words. Moscow has many buildings and other objects important enough to be placed in the article and we do not have enough room to place them outside the gallery. The gallery is relevant to the architecture section. Most of these images cannot be placed in commons because of copyright issues. The gallery inspired many authors to contribute to the article.--Nixer 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose (Keep the Gallery)

message: #Support TSO1D 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support (Remove the Gallery)

message: # Neutral There are good arguments for both, keeping and removing the gallery. Perhaps we can move it to the bottom of the article - this way it's not getting on the way of the reader who's looking for information rather then pictures. The only problem is that there will be a temptation for future editors to expand it endlessly... Azov 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: 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)
replies: text: As you know I am also against the gallery altogether, but there is opposition to its removal. As a result, the only other possibility I see is some form of a compromise. TSO1D 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this article ever goes up for featured status, the inclusion of the gallery anywhere in this article would almost certainly prevent it from becoming featured (people will ask for it to be removed). If this could pass an FAC without objections over the gallery, then that's wonderful; I would have no problem with the gallery then. But I'm seriously doubting that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can temporary remove the gallery when nominating the article.--Nixer 18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recommend you to do that. It expresses extreme bad faith. CG 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: Which edits are you talking about? Since my last edit, here are the changes that have been made. Things have been added and words have been replaced, but there obviously is no evidence of the last version by me including some perverted or distorted sentences. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop distorting the meaning of the sentences 

message: Can anybody re-create a copyright-free map of land costs based on this image:  ?--Nixer 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pros and cons of what? Of living in Moscow? Of the Moscow's existence? Of having Moscow as a capital? It's not a kind of tool, it's a city, after all. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of realty costs 

message: 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)
thread_title:   Private ownership of apartments was not allowed until 1990 

message: Please explain your concerns why this section about metro expansion plans should not exist in the article.--Nixer 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read comment to edits. Elk Salmon 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the comments are in very poor English. Do you insist not to include the section on future metro development at all or simply contest the verifiability of the sources (WP:V)?--Nixer 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Хорошо - расшифрую по-русски. Хотя там все и так понятно. Единственным достоверным источником является программа развития метростроения одобренная правительством Москвы. Ранее пришли к консенсусу редакторы, что использовать будем только это. В данный момент вот этот документ. . Новая программа будет рассмотрена завтра . Когда её опубликуют и можно будет менять планы. Гаев или официальный сайт не являются достоверными источниками и расказывают только о своих личных взглядах. Они подпадают под WP:NOR. Что до раздела в Москве, то нет необходимости копировать её из статьи о ММ. Там есть уже раздел. Статья о Москве и так уже прилична по размерам - по этому добавлять вещи которые дублируются в других статьях не стоит. Elk Salmon 10:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Если и правда завтра опубликуют, то я согласен, что можно и подождать. В то же время я не согласен, что заявления Гаева и то, что написано на сайте метро нарушает WP:NOR и WP:V. Мы не пишем, что это будет, мы пишем, что Гаев сказал это на интервью. В таком случае допустимы любые слухи, тем более, если они исходят от официального лица. Те планы, которые перечислены в таблице не только опубликованы, но и находятся на стадии интенсивного строительства. Я также планирую расширить секцию информацией о планируемом пассажирском движении по МК МЖД, четвертом автомобильном кольце, стадионе Спартак, который будет построен в Тушино и т.д.--Nixer 10:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Опубликуют не завтра. А с небольшой задержкой скорее всего в неделю-две. Если писать всю чушь когда либо сказаную гаевым и лужковым то и 7 статей не хватит ;). Так что лучше воздержаться. По МК МЖД пока тоже ничего не планируется. Это приоритет РЖД а не мосправительства, а они согласия не давали. Это возможно только после вывода всех заводов, когда у РЖД не останется выбора. Стадион тоже не одобрен (по крайней мере пока). Это давний план. Сейчас Тушино готовят к аукциону. Elk Salmon 10:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: По МК МЖД уже есть заделы на некоторых станциях метро. Понимаешь, есть проекты, о которых много говорят, и даже если нет пока официальной программы, о них стоит упомянуть. По стадону Спартак - я сам слышал по радио, что правительство Москвы приняло решение его строить (хотя мне самому больше бы понравилась идея аукциона).--Nixer 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Заделы были и под ветку на Лосиный Остров и под ветку в Строгино. Но все это не реализовано. На аукцион выставляется тушинское поле - будет или нет там стадиона зависит от того кто выйграет этот аукцион. Elk Salmon 11:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Про ветку на Лосиный остров я ничего не слышал в прессе. А тема МК МЖД интенсивно обсуждалась. К тому же, говорят, и в Сити будет станция. По Тушино порядка двух недель назад передавали, что решено строить стадион.--Nixer 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ветка в Лосиный Остров было проектом семедесятых, как и в Строгино. Заделы сделали и даже лишнюю платформу на Полежаевской, но дальше дело не пошло. . МК МЖД активно обсуждолось - а точнее 4 варианта развития событий - ничего не строить, апгрейд МК МЖД, строительство линии метро вдоль МК МЖД, строительство трамвайной линии вдоль МК МЖД. По Тушино ничего не решено. Готовят аукцион (официально ещё не объявлено). Хотя конечно часть могли и без него отдать. Elk Salmon 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: В любом случае, думаю, что секцию о будущем развитии метро в том или ином виде необходимо включить в статью. Кстати, не знаешь, есть какие-то планы относительно Измаиловского проспекта?--Nixer 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansions 

message: Today, its campus is the largest university campus in the world.
: I doubt that a reference to Stanford editor's note is a good source for claiming that MSU's campus is the largest. Quite a number of american schools appear to have largest campus to me. 151.199.54.37 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, cite seems not to work on talk page. 151.199.54.37 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of MSU campus