Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of churches in Moscow/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:04, 26 March 2012 [1].

List of churches in Moscow[edit]

List of churches in Moscow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫TCN 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow was before the Revolution a very religious city; around the 10s, more than 1000 churches and other religious buildings had room in the capital. Since the revolution, the majority of churches was destroyed or reconstructed, at the begining of the 90s there were "only" 250 churches. However, since the fall of communism there was a revival, now there are after all about 300 churches. This is a great list of not all but the most important churches, and I believe it meets the criteria.♫GoP♫TCN 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Where are the references for the years of completion? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main reference for the date of the completion of the Orthodox Churches is [2]. According to the site, it has all Orthodox churches and monasteries in Moscow. The rest from other sources in the External links or the Further reading section. I did not include it as it would take too much space (but if you want I can do it). Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please do so. Also, reorganise the footnotes section -- "Further reading" shouldn't come first, "Notes" should, followed by "References", then "Further reading", before ending with "External links". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done the latter. I will do the referencing later. I don't have much time in real life so it might take a few days.--♫GoP♫TCN 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, I believe it is ok to use the links in the external links section as general sources. I just don't think it makes sense to reference the dates. I would like to know if others agree with Phil's proposal. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue I have with this list is it isn't just the dates in the table that aren't cited, but the entire table. For this nomination to have a chance, I urge you to source the contents of the table in some way. If the external links cover all of the content, then it's fine to have them as general references. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they cover the whole information, except the translated title.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before stance Conditional support until an image review is carried out. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "which don't occupy"
    • Done
  • "(including pure baptisterys, memorial chapels and similar)" My interpretation regarding the uage of including is that not everything is listed, so I'd tweak it to "(including pure baptisteries and memorial chapels)". What do you think?
    • Good idea. Done
  • I think the first and second paragraphs should be referenced more, especially after every statistic or figure.
    • I added one in-line citation in the second paragraph. The first is supported by the first reference.
  • No retrieval dates are needed for print media (last source of "Further reading").
    • Removed
  • MOS advocates the inclusion of alt text.
    • I am afraid it will not only take hours to do so, but most churches are hard to define, as, firstly, they do not differ very much from each other, and secondly, I might include difficult terms which might be problematic for the majority to understand them.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think it's unreasonable to ask you to write alt text for all the photos, so I'll waive my request.

Comments

  • There are several churches where wikilinks show for the first time, but not the next entries - ex: "Ascension of Christ", "Cosmas and Damian", "John the Baptist", etc. These should all be wikilinked, just the way you always wikilink "Russian Orthodox" in the fourth column for all entries.
    • It was intentionally to reduce the size
  • There are several churches where the name of the church is redlinked - ex: "Church of the Martyr Saint Nikita on the Louse Mountain". If the church doesn't have an article, I would remove the wikilink - otherwise it just stands out.
    • I delinked the redlinked church names.
  • There are several place names that could be wikilinked - ex: Khamovniki could link to Khamovniki District
    • I think that would be overlinking, and the district is already linked
  • In general, I would review all the entries in the "Name" column. There are some where a saint is linked, there are some where the church itself is linked, there are a ton of redlinks, there are a bunch with place names that could be linked, and there are some with place names and some without. The mix of all of those is disconcerting.
    • Now, according to the lead, the name in boldface is either the patron saint or the feast day. The redlinks should stay to create the articles in future. I did not link most of the place names because they have no articles. Some are without because they are either autonomous or located in a place which is hard to describe.
  • How are these ordered in each table? One would expect by either the church name or by the year of completion, but neither seems to be the case.
    • They are sorted by either the patron saint or the feast day
  • Could you put the church name in the alt tag of the images?
    • No, because it is hard work and it is meaningless for blind people
  • What does "priesterless" mean?
    • It should be priestless. Done
  • Central Okrug, Church of the Venerable Confessor Basil - is Basil one of those listed at Saint Basil (disambiguation)?
    • It is Basil the Blessed (Fool for Christ). Done
  • Per Giants2008 above, it concerns me that there are almost no references in the tables, and precious few in the intro paragraphs.

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is unnecessary and would take too much time. The only thing not in the references is the English translation of the church. That's because there are no strict translation, except for the mainstream churches (such as the Basil Cathedral). Thanks for the review.--GoPTCN 20:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this FLC, for two major reasons and one minor.
A) In essence, the list goes against WP:WHIM. The criteria for inclusion seems to be simply a collection of churches in a specific location, which is not notable. Furthermore, a FL should contain a WP:RS that backs up the claim that the entry meets the inclusion criteria, and none of the entries have references.
As I said, I can put the references in each table, but that is not intelligent to do so as you can simply add the general reference to the bottom. I don't think this is against WHIM. Moscow once had more churches than Rome, and it was possibly the most religious city that have ever existed. Moscow had a long religious tradition and many of its churches are classic examples of Russian and overall Orthodox architecture. I am not sure what you mean by "a FL should contain a WP:RS that backs up the claim that the entry meets the inclusion criteria". The references are undisputable reliable, especially sobory.ru.
B) FLC#4 indicates that the list should be easy to navigate and be sortable where needed. If the initial sort order is by "patron saint or feast day", there is no way to return to that sort order once it has been sorted any other way. Indeed, "patron saint or feast day" don't appear in the information presented, except to be "intuited" by the name of the church.
Well, you need to read the lead to know how it is sortable. How would like it to be sorted? Nearly every church begins with "Church of" or similar, and you can sort to your choice by pushing the Shift button and selecting the column.
c) Without alt text of any sort, a blind reader would only know there was an image in each entry, not what that image represents. Claiming that it's too much work is simply not acceptable, IMO. Featured lists take work :)
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not easy to describe it without introducing jargon. And alt text is not absolutely necessary.GoPTCN 22:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The referencing in this article is less than exemplary. Non-English references make verification harder. In light of that, more in-line citations are not asked too much. Goodraise 00:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but why should I put in-line citations if I just can use general references in the bottom? This is not my fault that there are no English sources, and that is not an issue to use instead non-English sources, especially as they are reliable. I won't make in-line citations because this is silly; the list easily passed in de.wiki, and I don't see why someone should it oppose only for such small issues. Can you explain why people should care about this? They just want to know the location of the church or the name, maybe the date. And you can trust me that every entry is correct (I am Russian native speaker and I checked them all).--GoPTCN 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I know I can not vote, but I want to say that I put a lot of work on this list. As I explained, you can easily use general references instead of in-line citations! That is not a valid reason to oppose. --GoPTCN 08:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A featured list exemplifies our very best work." Of course you can use general references in the bottom, but then you can't expect reviewers to be impressed. I care about this, because I don't trust Wikipedia editors. I want to check things for myself. I tried in-text searches of several church names on the general references with no results. If verification was that easy here, I wouldn't object to general references, but it isn't that easy. Non-English sources aren't a problem, they just make me want to see in-line citations even more. I'm sure you put a lot of work into this. I have translated articles from German to English myself. However, expectations of "informative lists" on de.wikipedia are lower than our expectations of featured lists, and even the German version of this article has over 80 in-line citations ("Einzelnachweise"). Goodraise 13:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image comment: Images on Commons need to be free for commercial use in both the US and their country of origin, Russia in this case. Russian copyright law does not grant full freedom of panorama, meaning some of the pictures on this list may not be free enough to be on Commons. Images marked as "own work" – they are in fact derivate works of the buildings – by the uploader can only be considered free if the uploader is also the architect of the photographed building, the architect has given permission, or the architect has died more than 70 years ago. In the last case, evidence of the architect's death needs to be provided if the church is not so old that its architect can be assumed to have died more than 70 years ago. Taking the lead image as an example and trusting that our relevant articles are accurate, the last architect to contribute was Zurab Tsereteli, who is still alive. That means commercial use of the image without permission at this time (at least in Russia) would be copyright infringement, unless, which is far from impossible, I'm mistaken in some way. Goodraise 02:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoever made this law is stupid. Everyday people photograph buildings, and nobody complaints about "copyright". If the building would have been "copyrighted", the creator would not place it in public, but rather somewhere where no one, except he himself, would view the building. If this is true what you are saying, I am withdrawing my nomination, and I will possibly never participate here. This is getting more and more ridiculous. Regards.GoPTCN 14:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd regret being the reason for someone to stop participating at FLC. However, unlike my oppose rational above, complying with copyright law is non-negotiable. Anyway, as I understand it, Russian copyright law allows for non-commercial use of such pictures, which is not enough for Commons. The English Wikipedia is less restrictive than Commons, only requiring works to be free in the US or even only available under "fair use". So it may be possible to keep all the pictures in the article; work is required, however, to do this in a way that's legally permissible. Goodraise 17:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_churches_in_Moscow/archive1&oldid=1089077713"