Talk:Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro)

Deepest in the world
Can’t say for all the world, but Arsenalna station in Kyiv is 100 or 120 metres deep depending on how one measures (it’s under a hill). Roman V. Odaisky 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a deepes one in the world!--WWay (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081003020857/http://www.metro.ru/map/1989/metro.ru-1989map-big3.gif to http://www.metro.ru/map/1989/metro.ru-1989map-big3.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Depth
Please, read, what I wrote in Russian Wikipedia. I found a mistake, which is coping from one newspaper to another. We don't know, who and how counted the depth as 84 meters, but it's completely incorrect information. I found 3 reliable sources, which showed that the main escalator is shorter than 65 meters (one is the sources says it's 63,4 meters, and it looks like a correct information). Then I found reliable source with information about a small escalator and an elevator. Everybody can use his own eyes and even a ruler to check the information (there are stairs near from the escalator and elevator). If you add the dimensions up, you will get 63,4+3,6+4,98=71,98 meters. It's a real depth of the platform of the station near the exit. The rail head is 1,1 meters below the platform (it's a standard), the surface above the station is almost flat, so the real depth of the station (depth of real head on the center of the station) is about 73 meters. It can't be 84 or even 80 meters, how your "reliable source" says. Moreover, we found other "reliable source" with different depth (from 74 to 84 meters). As a result, we decided to write in Russian Wikipedia that the depth is about 73 meters, because it's the most correct value, which we have. If you want, I can copy here our reliable sources, but all of them are in Russian Wikipedia and you can easily find them there. Neytiri M.D. (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I read what you wrote and most of it doesn’t pass muster. If you’re going against the official count by the subway system, then you need to do better. Besides here is a source that lists the new escalator’s depth as 68m, so your estimate of 63.6 is subject to a variance. Your sourcing of the varying depths of the station is also a bit questionable. One source says “максимальная глубина составляет порядка 80 метров в районе станции "Парк Победы".” which is about 80m, not exactly 80m. Your assumption that it’s wrong assumes that this is an exact measure, rather than an approximate figure. It is anything but a definitive statement. Further, a second source that you cite as showing another variance says “за столь короткое время на глубине почти 90 метров”, or almost 90m. You’ve excluded the possibility that in a network of stations that are 30 meters or so, 84 m could well mean “almost 90”. One source honestly is a private website that I am not necessarily crediting as reliable without knowing its source. Further your calculations are original research, which, if you were a structural engineer that was involved in planning and construction and could assure me that the figures include all possible components of the station, such as thickness of floors and ceilings, might get us somewhere. However, without some verifiable expertise on your part, your figures are simply back-of-the-napkin calculations that may bear little resemblance to the reality. As of right now, the most reliable source is the Moscow Metro, which states that it is 84 meters. Virtually every reliable source that definitively states a number rather than an “almost” or “about” says 84 meters. If you genuinely believe the Metro has somehow misstated the depth of a station for over 14 years, you should contact them and ask for a correction. But you can’t just toss out the official figure because one person that may or may not know what they are talking about developed a crude estimate.  TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 23:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1 - where are you from?
 * 2 - do you know Russian language or use a computer translator?
 * 3 - have you ever been on the station?
 * 4 - do you know, who Marat Khusnullin is? How often he says drivel? Do you know, that he isn't a true reliable source?
 * 5 - do you know, that the height of the escalator "ETK-265" CAN'T be more, than 65 meters, according its manufacturer ? Do you know, that the number in the name of the escalator means? It means, that the maximum height can be only 65 meters. Same with many other Russian escalators (it was designed in Russia and only built in Ukraine).
 * 6 - yes we have to use an original research to check different sources. But only check and only because there is no consensus between reliable sources (these 4 sources are reliably, according your rules, but all of them have different depth: almost 74, about 80 , 84 and almost 90 meters near from the station ). Imagine, the sources said that there were 207, 300, 400 and about 500 stations in the Moscow Metro. Can we count the stations without the sources, or must put in the article obviously mistaken information, because the mistake was written in some newspaper (not even all, only some)? We talk about a public place, everybody can visit it and understand, that there are much less than 20 (even 15) meters between the big escalator and the surface. If you didn't noticed, I live in Moscow and know, what I talk about.
 * 7 - "thickness of floors and ceilings", sorry, what are you talking about? Do you know, what the station is? It's a mine (like a coal mine), built deeply underground. The mine is connected with the surface with a cascade of 2 escalators (big and small) and staircase/elevator. There is no floors and ceilings between the station and its vestibule, they are connected with an escalator tunnel (hope, you know, what it is). So, only, what we can count, are the escalators and staircase/elevator and i showed enough engineering sources with their measurements    . Why don't you want to believe documents from engineers, who design, build and service the escalators and elevator, but believe officials and journalists, who don't have any engineering education, don't know anything about engineering and very often say/write foolishness? Only because the officials/journalists say entire deeps, while the engineering documents says only about parts of the deeps? Why can't you allow summarize engineering information and get true depth?
 * 8 - the Moscow Metro website isn't the most reliable source, because it obviously was written by a small clerk, who, probably, used information from Wikipedia or a private website, not by an engineer with a blueprint. Anyway, my sources with escalators and elevator are more reliable, because they have background (first is the same official website, but the list was copied by engineers from their documents, the second is a document from contract, published on official website of contracts), while your source has only numbers without description, how they got them.
 * 9 - do you know, how journalists and clerks work? They get a task to write an article. They don't know information, so they open official website or Wikipedia and use the information from the sources. Nobody controls, what they write, so they often copy mistaken information. Maybe, in your country they work better, but we talk about Moscow. In this case official website and Wikipedia said 84 meters, of course, many newspapers used the information.
 * 10 i would like to write to the official website, but how to do this? I didn't find, how to contact with author of the page. Moreover, it seems like they author spent couple hours to write the page and forgot about it, because the information on the page is pretty old (there are still 200 station in the network, while the 201st station was opened in September 2016). Neytiri M.D. (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ”the Moscow Metro website isn't the most reliable source, because it obviously was written by a small clerk, who, probably, used information from Wikipedia” says more about your credibility in this than anything else. Have a good day  TastyPoutine  talk (if you dare) 16:54, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read my previous message? I wrote there, that the website has 2 different points of view! And only one of them doesn't have visible mistakes, but has background, why do you use another one? Neytiri M.D. (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you refer both times to the same page, which says 84m. And, well, I speak Russian and been to the station.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the first link is this, the second one is this . Both of them are to only website, but the first has only numbers, but NO sources, while the second one has a list of ALL escalators of the network, so it was surely copped from engineering documents. The second link reveals that there are only 67 meters between the platforms and the ticket hall. Then i posted a link to project documents from Закупки (official website of tenders), which showed that the ticket hall is 4,98 meters below the surface. Why do you ignore the engineering information and continue to use a source, written by a clerk for common men? Neytiri M.D. (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, this is exactly what we call original research. I am afraid your only option is to have the depth changed at the official website. (Or possibly on a plaque on the station itself - does it say smth about the depth?)--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How the official websites can be original research? Original research is measurement with a roller, but I showed you reliable sources, which says, that the depth of the platforms is 63,4+3,6+4,98=71,98 meters. Why do you consider that the reliable sources are worse than another reliable source? Neytiri M.D. (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because summing them up is original research.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Easy question: what is a goal of Wikipedia? Collection official information despite its quality and without any possibility to write about other points of view? Or showing all points of view, which have reliable sources? As i remember, the second way is more correct. So i propose not to put the depth in the infobox, but write a section, where will be different points of view with reliable sources and calculations. In other words, i propose to use the same way, which we used in Russian Wikipedia. Neytiri M.D. (talk) 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but we can not add original research, not to the infobox, and not to the body. If there are reliable sources which list a different depth we can cite them. So far, I have not seen any.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, 4 different depth with reliable sources: 74 , about 80 , 84 and almost 90 meters near from the station . Neytiri M.D. (talk) 13:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We are, well, going in circles. "About 80" does not mean 80. "Almost 90" does not mean 90. I do not see how they contradict each other. The three which give 74 would likely not pass the notability evaluation.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why the sources, which says 74 aren't reliable? Because you don't want to believe, that the station isn't so deep as you want? The information was published by big news agencies. I don't see any reason not to believe them if we believe other sources, which obviously copped their information from the official website of Moscow Metro. Neytiri M.D. (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am afraid at this point you need to go and look for mediation (or report us to a noticeboard).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)