Talk:National parks of Russia

Old talk
If no one else has a go, I intend expanding this article, once 'Zapovednik' is finished. Meanwhile I have added two external links giving details of all the national parks, and have added an introductory sentence. I don't recognize the first park on the existing list.Geoff Harper 14:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC) Maybe it is 'Nizhnyaya Kama' in the Tatar language.Geoff Harper 16:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I've tried several times uploading a map from http://www.rusnatpress.org.uk/parksmap.jpg (my own work and available for all use) but no success.Geoff Harper 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 10:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

National parks of Russia → List of national parks of Russia – I think this is relatively uncontroversial, but I cannot move the page for technical reasons. The article is currently a list with a short introduction, rated by WikiProjects as list class, and categorized as a list article. Most similar articles in Category:Lists of national parks are named "List of ..." ELEKHHT 06:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Let us wait a couple of days, and if there are no objections I will move. I am neutral on the issue.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Aspects of the Overview section of the article are not congruent with a list article. Is this article really just a list or a stubby article dominated by a list?  (Other similar articles include National parks and nature reserves of Israel, National parks of New Zealand, and South African National Parks.  On the other hand, National Parks in the Republic of Ireland really is just a list.)  —  AjaxSmack   01:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Providing a brief overview is congruent with list articles. See the featured List of National Parks of Canada or List of national parks of Sweden for example. I don't mind if anyone wishes to expand this into an article, but fact is that this has been a list for ten years now since 2004, and I think it should have been named so all this time. I would rather suggest as a priority expanding Protected areas of Russia into a proper article, that can link to various lists. -- ELEKHHT 02:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is a notable topic as-is, and the overview needs expansion. The "List of" should be considered a spin out, only after this parent article is too large. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. clearly a well-defined topic with potential for expansion. - Altenmann >t 05:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Update To Table
I updated the list to add photos, descriptions, and reference citations to the actual park web sites (most of which are in Russian). I count 9 parks added by MNRR since the original creation of the list, and one unconfirmed deletion. Could I get some help with this? (a) I'm using the Romanizations from the original table (with one or two exceptions that looked like typos), but am finding differences in the real world and am not a Russian speaker, (b) is it sufficient to put the citations in the "Citation/URL" column for each line item, or do I need to double up by adding a ref tag to each? Thanks. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 04:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There are multiple valid ways to romanize most Russian words; when in doubt, you can refer to WP:RUS, which describes a default go-to standard to use in the English Wikipedia. Of course, it will only be useful to you if you can read Cyrillic :) (you don't really have to understand Russian, just be able to read it) (And let me know if you need help with any particular entries; I'll be happy to assist). As for the citations, you seem to simply be putting a link to the national park's website in that column, correct? That, of course, is useful, but not strictly speaking a citation. If the information in the Description column comes straight from the official website (which is not ideal, but acceptable as long as the information is strictly factual and contains no opinions), it should be supported with a link to the particular page on that website, not to the website's main page. I would suggest changing the name of the "Citation/URL" column to "Website" and appending references to the actual description. It's a lot of grunt work, I understand, but it makes maintaining the table easier in the long run. And hey, thanks a lot for working on this; much appreciated! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 30, 2015 ; 14:18 (UTC)
 * I thought at some point I checked all the transliterations in the table. Can do it again any time.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)