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?

Who even wrote this section... There was no signature.. Wtf. Is it ok if this section of the talk page is just deleted? It should be obvious why... Anyone else got any thoughts on this? SageSolomon (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It is so bizarre and non-sensical that it should stay. That person is clueless, but maybe a youngster put it in for a laugh, thinking it is funny. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:4CC6:B61E:8C7D:FC82 (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

I have a bit of trivia: We had a friend called Leonid who'd come out of the Soviet Union in about 1973. He was from Moldova, where it's nice and warm, or warm enough for him. When he was doing military service he refused to put on LongJohns. He must have been stationed where it's colder than in his home republic. When he continued to refuse, they sent him to Kamchatka where he was made to cut onions all day long. He also learned to put on LongJohns. It is soooo cold in Kamchatka, he said. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:4CC6:B61E:8C7D:FC82 (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2022 (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)

I disagree. This is an article about Kamchatka, and all information about Kamchatka should be included. If someone could show me the rule/guideline that says I'm wrong, I'd be happy to see it. if not...Kude90 (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:IINFO: to provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Inclusion of Kamchatka in Risk may thus be of encyclopedic value in the article about Risk, but inclusion of Risk in Kamchatka qualifies, at best, as trivia. Just because Kamchatka is mentioned in a work of fiction (or in a game) does not at all mean that all such mentions should be dumped into the article about Kamchatka. There is absolutely nothing special about Risk that has to be explained in the article about Kamchatka but does not belong in the article about the game.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2013; 18:44 (UTC)

...and here's an essay that explains all this far better than I've just done. It's not a policy, but it describes Wikipedia's trivia handling practices accurately.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 11, 2013; 18:48 (UTC)

Incomplete

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

Isn't it wonderful that there is one place left in the world that people do not spoil? They have increased the military there somewhat but that's all I think. In 500 years, if mankind is still about, people will look at the pictures and say 'oh this is what landscape looks like". 2001:8003:A070:7F00:4CC6:B61E:8C7D:FC82 (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2022 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.124.247.178 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

370,000 km² is the area reported by the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (here).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 3, 2012; 14:45 (UTC)

Great Soviet Encyclopedia is a wrong source on that. Edited with the correct number (about 270,000 km²), with a link to the article in Russian that explains the mistake. Nitekatt (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

anon 71.173.0.217 - when you tag you must provide why on the Talk Page

Reading the section, I don't see anything objectionable per your tag. I do see the need for inline citations, which are sorely lacking. If you wish to tag the way you did, you must provide specific examples of what you are objecting to here, so it may be discussed and possibly addressed.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kamchatka Peninsula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kamchatka.gov.ru/en/index.php?cont=3
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release%2C116385.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424232002/http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/Traf-109.pdf to http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/Traf-109.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Related and See also.

Please avoid adding non related or too specific events and articles to the See also section.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

What is etymology of Kamchatka? Please add information. --Propatriamori (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 3 January 2020

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Kamchatka Peninsula → Kamchatka – This article is already the primary topic of "Kamchatka" so why not simplify the title? Roastedturkey (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It is simply "Камчатка" in Russian, and a majority of websites use "Kamchatka" alone. In over a third of the other ninety languages for which there is a Wikipedia article, the title uses just the bare name. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME for which usage in other languages is not relevant, but usage in the NY Times certainly is, and quite persuasive. --В²C ☎ 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• As noted below, The New York Times uses both forms. Dekimasuよ! 03:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. WP:ATDAB "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification". Opera hat (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and disambiguate due to the distinction between the peninsula and the political region: Kamchatka Krai (7000 views a month), or historically, Kamchatka Oblast. Alternatively, this article can also cover the political entity in summary form in its own section, rather than simply mentioning it. Note that Madagascar, Hokkaido, etc. combine these tasks. Dekimasuよ! 01:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dekimasu, are you suggesting the peninsula is not the primary topic for Kamchatka and that the dab page should be moved to Kamchatka? It doesn't make sense to argue for disambiguating the title of the primary topic article for that title. But page views show a clear primary topic for the peninsula, and it's unclear if the base name is even a common name for the krai, though it clearly is for the peninsula. For example, the largest city in the krai is Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, and that article does not refer to the krai as just Kamchatka, whereas Kamchatka in the Volcanoes of Kamchatka is a reference to the peninsula. --В²C ☎ 20:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Concision is only one of our title concerns. We do this for precision all the time. Barack Obama is the primary topic for Obama, but we don't put the article there. Mount Everest is the primary topic for Everest, but we don't put the article there. Cf. Britannica: Kamchatka Peninsula. As for UNESCO names, they are based on whatever application information submitted by the country. Some of them are quite idiosyncratic. For example, the volcano Mount Fuji is officially registered by UNESCO as "Fujisan, Sacred Place and Source of Artistic Inspiration". Dekimasuよ! 03:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Concision? You wrote: “disambiguate due to the distinction between the peninsula and the political region”. I’m asking why disambiguate if it’s the primary topic? Now you’ve produced a new argument to include “peninsula”, but you still haven’t explained your original “disambiguate” argument. As to your new argument, it appears to be asserting that the more common name includes the peninsula. The Brittanica ref aside, I don’t think that’s correct. —В²C ☎ 05:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• 1) I assumed concision was the reason why you would want the proposed title. 2) I do not believe the term has a primary topic, so it should be disambiguated. 3) Even if there were a primary topic, it would not be inappropriate to redirect to the more precise title. If you don't like the examples I gave, the first two peninsulas I thought of were disambiguated in ways following what I've written here: Korea covers both the peninsula and the political entities on it in a single article, and Keweenaw redirects to Keweenaw Peninsula (which sometimes shortens the name to "Keweenaw" in the text of the article once context has been established). Dekimasuよ! 11:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Names used in other language Wikipedias are not relevant. New York Times has used "Kamchatka" and "Kamchatka Peninsula". GeoWriter (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Kamchatka is already a redirect to Kamchatka Peninsula which is a clearer title. There is also a Kamchatka (disambiguation). Benjamin Trovato (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kamchatka (disambiguation), this move zero benefit to English speaking users. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - For the reasons mentioned by Dekimasu, In ictu oculi and Benjamin Trovato. SageSolomon (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2020 (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.

Ecology of Kamchatka, surrounding seas, human-made disasters

• Kamchatka: Pollution killing sea life in Russian far east
• Massive marine die-off in Russia could threaten endangered sea otters, other vulnerable species
• Could a Lethal Algae Bloom Have Killed Kamchatka’s Sea Creatures? Some Marine Biologists Think So.

After 1 year from disaster I thought I would find some information about this accident (human caused?) in this article about this peninsula. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Under the "Climate" -section...

Under the Climate section there seems to be a rather unfriendly and trollish message once one mouseovers the link Oyashio (which leads to a Wikipedia page about the Oyashio Current). I don't know where or how to fix this so I thought it would be best to leave a comment regarding this issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiwet (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Already fixed. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)