Talk:Kamchatka Peninsula

Volcanoes

it makes sense that the kamchatka peninsula is volcanic since the aleutian islands are as well. Gringo300 03:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did you mean to ask a question of some sort? I guess I don't understand the point of your statement above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Steller's Sea Eagle

The statement that the Kamchatka Peninsula is home to the Steller's Sea Eagle, the largest eagle in the world, is either mistaken, or the wikipedia page on the eagle itself, is. The link provided pulls up the page on the Steller's Sea Eagle, itself, which, in its very first paragraph, states that it is the third largest eagle. Which is right? HæSúsê 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm about to just delete the statement entirely, if someone can't clarify this error. HæSúsê 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I replaced "largest" with "heaviest"; per Steller's Sea Eagle. Next time, if you see a mistake like this one, just be bold and correct it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

"Largest" is an ambiguous term. Which, after all, is larger, the 8 ton elephant or the 6 meter tall giraffe? It probably does no particular disservice to the reading community (or to the Harpy and Philipine eagles) to identify the Steller sea eagle as the `largest' eagle, but `heaviest' is certainly more precise (if slightly less dramatic). Eliezg 02:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Burger

Is there a Jewish Burger society? Is Wiktor Wekselberg from the Kamchatka Peninsual?

Wildlife

Blue whales can not be said to be `abundant' anywhere. Also, it is not clear why blue whales deserve mention in a Kamchatka article, while orcas, fin whales, sperm whales, grey whales, beaked whales and minke whales, all of which are observed with far greater frequency than blue whales off the coast of Kamchatka, are omitted, to say nothing of Steller sea lions, northern fur seals, spotted seals, harbor seals, ribbon seals and walruses. The choice of terrestrial mammals seems similarly arbitrary; why not arctic wolves, weasels, ermines, marmots, mountain goats, reindeer, moose? What about the seabirds: northern fulmars, thick and thin-billed murres, kittiwakes, tufted and horned puffins, red-faced, pelagic and other cormorants, and many other species? What about marine invertebrates (Kamchatka crab, scallops, mussels, periwinkles), or flora, or terrestrial birds?

All of this begs the question: how does one choose what wildlife is chosen to `represent' a geographical location? High-profile, charismatic megafauna? Conservation status? Or is the goal to be comprehensive? This seems a daunting task for any location, especially one as vast, diverse and undeveloped as Kamchatka. I would revise the article myself if I had a sense what the purpose was; but for the record, all of the species listed above are present, indeed abundant, in and around the Kamchatka peninsula.

Eliezg 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I took Yozhik's advice from above and 'was bold' with the fauna. However, it still risks reading too much like a litany, and there's unavoidable imbalances given to some groups, such as terrestrial birds, and a total omission of flora! Perhaps some day a Kamchatka botanist would care to fill in the gaps.

Eliezg 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You could always start a new article, something along the lines of Wildlife of the Kamchatka Peninsula or Flora and fauna of the Kamchatka Peninsula, where you can go (pardon the pun) wild and list whatever life forms you feel deserve to be mentioned, and trim this article's wildlife section to leave only the most important highlights. Seeing that you are pretty much the only person genuinly interested in editing Kamchatka-related stuff, it's hard to go wrong. As long as you can add/change anything that you think is missing, no matter how exactly you go about it, it's only going to be an improvement. Even if you accidentally screw up anything, it can always be fixed later.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

trivia

Just wondering, what rule/guideline forbids trivia?Boatman666 02:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA. Note that it does not necessarily forbids trivia sections, but rather imposes a set of requirements to which such sections should adhere if present.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

that page in it self says "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary" so why just delete the section? Boatman666 03:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It also says "avoid creating lists of loosely related information". Assuming that you are referring to this edit, I honestly don't see how that piece of useless, unencyclopedic (and definitely very loosely related) information can be improved. The World War Z article itself does not even mention Kamchatka, yet for some reason it it important to have this piece here? Keeping this piece would not be unlike adding something along the lines of "Great Britain becomes a major producer of oil in World War Z" to the Great Britain article. Completely and utterly useless.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

First there is nothing that says that an article can't be interesting and still be encyclopedic. Perhaps if you allowed this "trivia" it would draw people in and generate interest in this region. Secondly is it the content or the format that you object to?Boatman666 15:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I object to both. WP:TRIVIA explicitly states to avoid trivia sections (no matter how (un)encyclopedic, (un)interesting, and/or use[ful/less] their contents might be): information that would otherwise be located in the trivia section should be incorporated into the article. But here is where content comes into play—what this particular trivia section contained (before Ghirla removed it) can hardly be incorporated, because it is only very loosely related to the subject at hand. Now, if we had a list of "literary works that mention Kamchatka" or somesuch (note that I am not arguing for or against the merits of having such a list), the fact that Kamchatka was mentioned in World War Z would fit there no problem; as would the references to other hundreds, if not thousands, of books/movies/games that either mention Kamchatka, or have some action set there, or have it included in their scopes. On the other hand, having this same fact in the article about Kamchatka Peninsula does not add any value to the article, because the article is supposed to describe the peninsula, its geography, climate, flora/fauna, etc., not list every minor book where the peninsula had ever been featured. The article should invite others to contribute material on the core aspects of the topic, not to list endless references to it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Kamchatka, not about all occurrences of the word "Kamchatka". Besides, I am strongly against the demeaning section title "Trivia". I am using "Miscellaneous". Sometimes you do need it, until the corresponding topic grows into a reasonable section. Like, it makes sense to have a piece "the life expectancy of Kamchatka dwellers is 47.5", because we don't have Demographic of Kamchatka anywhere. But we don't list all books where people eat in the article spoon, do we? `'Míkka 19:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Location

Would it be possible to get a map of Russia with the location of the peninsula highlighted? I think it would add to the article. Seem reasonable? Dalef (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

You can use the map from Kamchatka Krai; just note that it highlights the federal subject, not the geographical entity.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it O.K. to copy edit this article?

As well as lacking foot note citations, the article needs a good copy edit. It contains many peacock terms & weasel words. It is not right to remove tags as spam. I would be happy to do some but I don't want to get into an edit war with people who do not want the article improved. The article violates many MoS guidelines. Are there editors who object to attempts to improve the article? Regards, Mattisse 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't quite understand why you are even asking. Of course, you are welcome to improve the article where you feel improvements are needed! If you happen to run into a dispute, that would be taken care of separately, but don't let a possibility of that happening deter you from making good edits! Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Mattisse 21:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vitus Bering

It says "The Second Kamchatka Expedition by the Russian explorer Vitus Bering began the "opening" of Kamchatka in earnest". But Vitus Bering was born and bred in Denmark, and only later in late employed by the Russian navy. Shouldn't his nationality be listed as Danish (or Danish-Norwegian)?– Wikigeek at gmail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.163.213.226 (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

in pop culture

no one is bothering with the "in pop culture" section that wikipedia is infamous for? as i recall, kamatchatka is an impotant tactical position in risk for anyone that holds north america. when sara palin wakes up she can see it from her house.(thats a joke dont take it serious) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.205.249 (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That kind of stuff belongs in Risk (game), not here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete

So, what's happened there since 1990? Sca (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing :) But then, this is an article about a peninsula, its geography, volcanism, and history of exploration, so there wouldn't be much development in these areas. Information about pretty much anything else belongs in Kamchatka Krai, Kamchatka Oblast, and Koryak Okrug.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:04, March 17, 2009 (UTC)

Request diagram - needs a map

I've added a reqdiagram template to the geography paragraph - even without the descriptions given there, the article still needs a map that shows the major settlements, rivers etc. 95.149.3.138 (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Geothermal Power

There is a geothermal power station in Kamchatka. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.200.65 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Weather

What are "rare amounts" of lightning? BillyPreset (talk) 14:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Total area of the Penisula?

The article on the Kamchatka Peninsula states that the area of the peninsula is 472 km2. The is same number stated for the area of the entire Kamchatka Krai, but I do not think these numbers should be the same becasue the area of the peninsula ought to be smaller than the area of the Krai. Thay are not coterminous. The area north of the isthmus seems to me to be geograhically part of the mainland. The georgraphic definition of the peninsula ought to include only the area south of the isthus. The political borders of the Krai are not coterminous with the georgraphic boundaries of the peninsula.

Incidentrally, the area north of the isthmus seems to correspond very closely to the combined are of the nothern two raions of the Koryak autonomous okrug, which are entirely on the mainland, north of the isthmus. You can see this on the map of the political subdivisions of Kamchatka Krai that is located on the Russian language article. Combined, these two raion have an area of 188 km. It would be imposible to know precisely, however. I could not find the correct are stated on the Russain version either.

I don't understand German, but the German Article gives 370,000 km are the area of the peninsula. Its defninition is slightly larger than mine would be.