Talk:Star City, Russia

Merger proposal

I propose a merge of Star City, Russia to Zvyozdny_gorodok_(urban-type_settlement) as the latter has all the relevant Wikidata links in place and it's "history" section can easily be accompanied in this article. Furthermore, none of the other language versions of the Wikipedia make distinction between the two and for an average user the lack of links to their native language pages in the sidebar on the left on this page is just confusing. Kimvais (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Starry Town

Star City is the official English name of the location. However, Звёздный is an adjective, and Городо́к is a diminutive of Город, "city", making Starry Town a more appropriate translation. I'm going to add a brief mention of this in the article, and make a Starry Town page to direct here. NotPotable (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you see that there is already a mention of that in the footnotes? :) I'll be removing your addition as a duplicate. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 26, 2010; 15:09 (UTC)

As "Starry Town" is the more appropriate translation, I think that it warrants more than a mention in the footnotes, so that a casual reader will be more likely to take note of it. NotPotable (talk)

Town vs Facility

Alexei Leonov (cosmonaut 11) in his book 'Two Sides of the Moon' never refers to the "town" and "training centre" as separate entities, (referring to both as 'Star City') nor have I seen any sources that differentiate between "town" or "training centre". My area of interest is the early Soviet Space Program circa 1957-1968, so if the two have become separated at some time beyond my current level of research then it would be good for someone to note when this occurred and references provided, because I would be interested to know when this happened and how. Aakheperure (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we have a single article for the town and the training facility? I was only clarifying that we already have two articles: this one is apparently about the town, and the other is about the facility. Mlm42 (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am asking why they are considered separate as all the sources I have make no distinction, and wondered if there was a verifiable reason for it. I did not realise there were 2 articles, especially since there are references to the facility already on this page. If I were looking for information on the training facility I would have searched for Star City because of the reasons I cited above; I did this when I tried to contribute. Based on my current knowledge I consider them to be the same thing. Leonov makes no distinction between the centrifuge at Star City or the accommodation at Star City. There may be a new term which refers to both, but if there is I do not know it. I'd be interested in contributing to this, but at present this article is somewhat convoluted and I am confused as to why there are two. My preference would be to have 1 article. I'm only new here and know nothing about article merging, but would be willing to try to rewrite them into one article with assistance/guidance. Alternatively I will remove my contributions from this article and transfer them to the other article. Aakheperure (talk) 10:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The "town" (which is actually a closed urban-type settlement) was only incorporated as such in June 2009 and officially named in October 2009, so you won't be seeing too many references just yet (especially in English). Before that, the name was applied strictly to the facility organized as a military installation. Currently, the link to the article about the urban-type settlement is a red link (Zvyozdny gorodok (urban-type settlement)), but ideally that's where the information not pertaining to the actual facility should be placed. The facility is most certainly notable on its own to have own article, and "Star City, Russia" is an ideal location for it. On whether "Star City, Russia" and Yuri Gagarin Cosmonauts Training Center should be separate or merged I have no opinion. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 4, 2011; 15:36 (UTC)
    • I think the "facility" has two names: "Star City" and "Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center". Obviously we should not have two articles both on facilities, because there is only one. But we should have a separate article on the town (or settlement, or whatever you want to call it).. I thought the town was called "Star City", and there was a common abuse of language used for this term, which referred to both the town and the facility (this also happens in University towns, for example.. "I'm driving to Princeton" could refer either to the university or the town). Based on what you've said, the best solution is probably to merge the two facility articles, and create a separate article for the town (possibly called Zvyozdny gorodok (urban-type settlement)). Does that sound like a plan? Mlm42 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a good plan to me. Aakheperure?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 4, 2011; 18:32 (UTC)
• As far as I know the name in Russian/English Star City has been around since the late 1960s when the Soviet Press were given their first peek at the facility. The term may have hit the West in the mid 70s in the lead up to the Apollo/Soyuz test program. I agree that the town and facility could have separate entries, however, I would argue that the 'town' is simply a part of the facility, it exists (as far as I know) on the original grounds selected. Its function then, as it is now, was to house the cosmonauts, their families and other base personnel. Hypothetical: Are the barracks of large military bases or the accommodation blocks of large universities afforded a separate entry? Perhaps the use of the word town may be clouding the issue for us all, it's a nickname that has entered popular culture in both Russia and the West; as evidenced by the rather late incorporation of the name as cited above by Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?). To me, there is no actual town, its just a nickname, but I am more than happy to move my contributions over to the facility page (which needs work) and leave this article as a stub. Perhaps an alteration to the disambiguation page might also help? Aakheperure (talk) 05:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • If I've understood correctly, I've made some changes to the leads of both Star City, Russia, and Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center. I've also simply redirected the disambiguation page Zvyozdny gorodok to Star City, Russia, which now clearly disambiguates between the two, as per WP:TWODABS (although maybe it should redirect to the facility page, I'm not sure.. either way is fine with me). Mlm42 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• See if you agree with my tweak of the page. Aakheperure (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup, looks good. Mlm42 (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't quite agree. Since the urban-type settlement was only incorporated in 2009, there can't possibly exist an established English name for it (even as the name of the urban-type settlement in Russian is the same as the informal name of the facility grounds). At any rate, the article about the populated place would contain information completely unrelated to the facility—think administrative issues, municipal aspects, and so on and so forth, and it shouldn't really focus on anything prior to 2009, except for a brief summary. In its current state, this article basically summarizes the history of the facility and says nothing about the newly established entity.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2011; 15:26 (UTC)
    • Here's how I propose the things should be re-organized (to honor both our applicable guidelines and the English usage). "Star City" (in Russia) is obviously the name under which the training facility is best known in English, so "Star City, Russia" is where the current "Yuri Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center" article should be moved (both names would be given in the lead, obviously). I don't think it's right that an entity created in 2009 should usurp the title with such strong ties to the facility. "Zvyozdny gorodok" is also the name associated primarily with the facility, so Zvyozdny gorodok would be a redirect to "Star City, Russia" as well. The article would then have a {{redirect}} note, stating that "'Zvyozdny gorodok' redirects here; for the urban-type settlement, see Zvyozdny gorodok (urban-type settlement)". The latter link is in compliance with both the primary usage clause of WP:MOSDAB and with WP:NC:CITY#Russia (which guides how the titles of articles about the inhabited localities in Russia should be constructed). I will then take care of the urban-type settlement article, so it contains the information about the actual populated place, not just an overview of the facility history. How is that with everyone?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 7, 2011; 15:46 (UTC)
      • At least we all agree that there should be two articles: one for the facility, and one for the settlement area. The issue now is simply what do we call the prospective articles.. if we can avoid unnecessary disambiguators (as per WP:TWODABS), then we should do it. Maybe having the settlement article at Zvyozdny gorodok, with a dablink at the top.. I suspect not many English-speakers would search for "Zvyozdny gorodok" if they are looking for the city, so this seems like a safe move. As for what to call the facility, I haven't seen any convincing evidence that it is best known as "Star City" in English. For example NASA refers to it as "Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center".. this NASA blog calls it "Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, Star City, Russia".. in fact this NASA page indicates that they use the name "Star City" to refer to the settlement area, as distinct from the facility. So I think the current arrangement is good - having the settlement article called "Star City" and the training center article with its official name. But I don't think the facility article should be called "Star City", since this seems contrary to NASA's usage. Mlm42 (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• The more I try to write about it, the more I think it should be one article; because in the era in which I am interested there was no distinction. I am having difficulty separating the two, so I will leave this for other editors to improve since my opinion is out of step with the general consensus. I don't know what NASA call it, and would dispute using them as the primary source - why not use the Russian Federal Space Agency/Roscosmos website as a primary source? Aakheperure (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Roscosmos refers to the facility as Gagarin Cosmonaut Training Center, and they say Star City might become a "modern city". And here they clearly talk about GCTC as being located within Star City.. I still haven't found any recent sources (including from Roscosmos) that call the actual facility "Star City". Mlm42 (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• • It shouldn't be one article because we always have separate articles for the inhabited localities, and Zvyozdny gorodok is one (albeit a very new one). Sooner or later the information specific to the urban-type settlement will need to be separated anyway. Consider, for example, the lists of populated places in Moscow Oblast—it would make no sense whatsoever to have a link to an article about a facility (or mostly about a facility) amid the links to the actual populated places. I can take care of separating the information (and expanding the one about the urban-type settlement)—that's one thing I have plenty of experience with :)
  • As for the names, I'll leave it up to your expertise to decide which one is best suited for the facility. What I can confidently tell you is that "Star City" is a very poor choice to refer to the urban-type settlement (the one established in 2009, which can't possibly have a "conventional English name" due to its being created so recently). At any rate, for the purposes of establishing an article title, names of inhabited localities are never ever translated, only transliterated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 8, 2011; 14:56 (UTC)

• Exhiki, I would say that the NASA and Roscosmos websites (some links above, but a google search reveals lots more) are using the convention of calling the settlement "Star City". So I would argue that it does have a conventional English name, and it's "Star City". A Google news search for "star city" with "Moscow" also show this is common among English language news agencies. Mlm42 (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I hate to bring this up again, but that's what we use to determine the conventional name of inhabited localities. There is no indication at either the NASA or the Roscosmos links you provided that "Star City" refers to the urban-type settlement (this even sort of makes a distinction in the last sentence; notice how they specifically refer to the urban-type settlement as "Zvezdny" even as they use "Star City" elsewhere). "Star City" seems to be a traditional name of the facility, or of the grounds on which it is located, but not of the inhabited locality itself. At any rate, neither NASA nor Roscosmos are good sources to determine the conventional names of populated places—they specialize in space technology and use the terminology pertaining first and foremost to the space technology, not to the intricacies of the administrative-territorial divisions of Moscow Oblast. It may seem like splitting hairs to you, but if we strive to be accurate, it is little things like this that make a difference between a good encyclopedia and a lousy one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 8, 2011; 21:34 (UTC)

• You said "There is no indication at either the NASA or the Roscosmos links you provided that "Star City" refers to the urban-type settlement". Did you go to this link or this link that I provided? They seem pretty unambiguous to me. I've given two English-language sources (both of which are closely tied to the area, and probably know what they're talking about) that back up my argument that "Star City" is the conventional English name per WP:RUS.. Do you have an English language source that suggests there is another conventional English name for the inhabited locality? Mlm42 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is your job to provide evidence, not mine, because it is you who is stating that the term "Star City" refers to the urban-type settlement established in 2009. One can't prove a negative; the proof is always the job of the person making an assertion.

The first link you gave starts with "In Russia, NASA's Mir astronauts and Shuttle-Mir team members lived, worked and trained at a place called Star City". This is, first, obviously a historical reference; second, a dateless one; third, one that does not mention the 2009 incorporation; fourth, refers to a "place", which can mean anything at all; and fifth, is from a source that has nothing to do with the administrative divisions of Moscow Oblast but is rather a space facility history backgrounder in a space industry publication. The second source is equally unqualified, as it also comes from a space agency, which couldn't care less about the intricacies of the administrative-territorial organization and is concerned primarily with the matters of its industry. You wouldn't write an article on space exploration using solely the information and terminology from the footnotes in books on general history of the area, so why insist on using the information and terminology from the footnotes on the space exploration to reference an article about the administrative-territorial division? These are two different areas of knowledge, each important in its own way. Frankly, I don't understand why you would want to oppose my efforts to attach the terms "Star City" and "Zvyozdny Gorodok" primarily to the entities known for and associated with the space industry (i.e., the facility and its grounds) and insist on attaching it instead to an obscure administrative/municipal entity which is only of limited interest even to the specialists in the field of the administrative-territorial divisions and which is not even two years old? Are you sure we are discussing the same problem even?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 15:25 (UTC)

I'm not opposing you personally; like you, I think Wikipedia article titles should be "recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources" (as per WP:NAME).

I don't know anything about the obscure administrative/municipal entity, so maybe we are discussing different things. The point I'm trying to make is that the place where people (like astronauts and their families) live, sometimes called "Star City", is distinct from GCTC - the actual training facility. This distinction is made in several sources. Are you suggesting that the "obscure administrative entity" is not the same as where the astronauts live (sometimes called "Star City")? I assumed they were the same; but I haven't seen any references to this obscure administrative entity, so I have no idea. Mlm42 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am suggesting! Astronauts lived in "Star City" long before the 2009 incorporation, which alone hints that the entities are not the same. Even if the territory of pre-2009 "Star City" matches the territory of the newly established urban-type settlement 1:1 (which I don't believe it does, and which I am planning to research more thoroughly), we are still talking about different concepts. Consider, for example, that "Kansas City" can be fairly unambiguously traced to an area within certain territorial limits, yet we still have different articles about different concepts within those limits (Kansas City, Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas). This isn't a perfect example and the analogy is not exact, but I hope it brings the point across. A facility is not the same as the grounds on which the facility is located, and the grounds are not the same as the legally defined administrative unit within the limits of which they fall. A facility is certainly notable enough to have a dedicated article (under whatever title works best), and the grounds (or the pre-2009 unincorporated military settlement) in turn may or may not be notable enough to deserve own article (I don't know enough about the subject to decide, but generally we don't have articles for similar unincorporated military settlements elsewhere in Russia), but if it happens that the separate article is not warranted for the grounds, the information pertaining to the grounds is best merged into the article about the facility (as they fall under the same topic—space exploration), not into the article about the administrative unit containing the grounds (which falls under the unrelated topic of the administrative divisions). I'm sorry that I seem to be failing to explain all this coherently enough, but do you at least see where I'm coming from?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 17:37 (UTC)

Yes, I see where you're coming from.. But if the 2009 administrative division matches the pre-2009 "Star City", then I don't see a point in giving the article an obscure name, when "Star City" is more recognizable to readers; the two seem to be essentially the same concepts (though maybe they aren't identical concepts). I think they are close enough that we could still call the article "Star City", and explain the subtlties of the 2009 incorporation within the article. Mlm42 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's the whole thing—it does not. If you look at their official website (which, unlike NASA or Roscomos publications, is of prime relevance to the issue at hand), you'll see that they explicitly draw a line between the pre-2009 and post-2009 periods. The training facility, the grounds, and even the lodgings around them may be referred to as "Star City", but only in the context of space exploration. In the context of the administrative-territorial divisions, we should be using the conventions existing in that field (and by now I get a distinct impression that for whatever reason you just don't consider that topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage—I hope I'm wrong about that). It's never a good choice to mix the two unrelated concepts, even if doing so is easy. Doing so would be akin to the inclusion of an astronaut's whole biography (with birth, parenting, education, training, and funeral details) into an article about a space mission, just because the astronaut happened to participate only in that mission. Wouldn't that be "close enough" by your standards as well? Or perhaps by the same logic we should get rid of such articles as Oregon Territory or Nebraska Territory and instead simply incorporate them as "subtitles" into the articles about the modern states of Oregon and Nebraska? What exactly are you opposed to here? What is it to be gained by muddling the difference between a facility with grounds and an inhabited locality, especially when all the good names ("Star City", "Zvyozdny gorodok") would remain associated primarily with the concepts of space exploration, as they should? I most certainly do not understand where you are coming from with your arguments!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 20:56 (UTC)

Restart

Just to make sure we are discussing the same problems and see the matter in the same light, I have just expanded this article. Hopefully it should now be crystal clear just where it is I am coming with my complaints. I am content to leave this article in its present form as a historical backgrounder for "Star City", which would be focused mainly on the space exploration aspect and provide only minimally necessary details about the administrative status, but I will also create an article at Zvyozdny gorodok (urban-type settlement), which would deal primarily with all non-space, post-2009, aspects, and mention the space exploration and pre-2009 only to provide necessary background. Hopefully this solution is to everyone's satisfaction.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 9, 2011; 21:37 (UTC)

I'm definitely happy with the current situation. I thought you were trying to rename the Star City article, or redirect it to GCTC, or something, but I might have misunderstood. Mlm42 (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't trying to rename anything; I simply proposed that different aspects be separated into different articles. Sorry if my reasoning was too opaque to understand clearly. I hope we agree that things like municipal trash removal, privatization of apartments, and criminal accusations of the mayor do not really belong in an article about a space training facility or the history of the military establishment it was a part of, but would be right at home in an article about the urban-type settlement. There's still a question of whether the article about the facility should be merged with this one, but that's not something I can contribute a valuable input on and it should be decided by folks more knowledgeable about the space industry (like you!) anyway. At this point I would still appreciate a comment from Aakheperure to ensure this solution is acceptable to all parties, and if everyone agrees, I hope we can consider this matter closed?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 10, 2011; 14:31 (UTC)

• The articles are now very convoluted, GCTC contains unreferenced information that is questionable: how can a secret facility be "inaugurated" when the word inaugurated means first public use? There are citations on Star City in Russian which are of dubious use on the en-wiki. This is not a criticism of the person who placed them, just that I feel on the en-wiki English references should be used wherever possible, and the relevance of the references was not clear to me. I do not think that Zvezdny gorodok warrants a separate article: if it is the same place that has simply had the nickname officially adopted then it is still the same place, in which case this should be added as a section that notes the evolution of the site. If it is an entirely new entity with nothing to do with the GCTC then I doubt it meets notability standards.

In their current form I doubt I would even know where to start on improving either article, which is why I have moved on to cosmonauts. I'm not even sure I understand the argument any more. Being vision impaired I am not sure what the question to which I am supposed to respond actually is. Aakheperure (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The language of the references does not matter, as long as the sources are reliable and appropriate. I am not aware where one can get English translations of the documents I cited, yet what I cited is the sources most closely associated with the events being described. Appropriate English translations of the documents' titles have been supplied, and that is sufficient by our standards.

As for your statement that the urban-type settlement "does not deserve" a separate article, I cannot disagree more. Did you get a chance to read what I wrote above about the two being different concepts not mixing well? Why do you think this situation is any different? Why should we not have an article about a populated place, when it is generally accepted that each and every populated place deserves an article? Why do you think the sources I cited do not establish notability of the newly established entity? Can you answer these questions, please? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2011; 14:41 (UTC)

Ezhiki, your questions are very bitey. Aakheperure (who has made fewer than 200 edits) has made some good suggestions for improvements to the article (such as clarifying the word "inaugurated", and improving some references.. English-language sources are preferred, when possible). While it's true that every place deserves to be in some article, that's not to say every populated place deserves a separate article.. for example, my house is a populated place, yet it obviously doesn't deserve an article. A line must be drawn somewhere. I'm not sure why there's so much concern about creating a separate article for Zvezndy gorodok anyway; this content would be better suiting in the Star City article, possibly as a subsection - much the same as it currently is. I think we should keep the content here until there's a need to split the two (which I find unlikely to happen). Mlm42 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry if they look bitey; I assure you it was not my intent to make them sound that way. I am simply surprised that someone would declare a topic "not worthy an article" when sources demonstrating the exact opposite have been provided, and more sources are available for use in the urban-type settlement article when it is created. I also deliberately did not comment on "inauguration" and the quality of references in the GCTC article—that's not something I can really help with, and it has nothing to do with the possible article about the urban-type settlement anyway. As I previously said, work on the articles about the space industry should be left to those knowledgeable about it (which isn't me by a long shot, even though I'm a fan), and work on the articles about the administrative divisions should be left to those knowledgeable about them (which, from what I've seen, is neither of you two). And as for the reasons why "Star City" the grounds should be separate from "Zvyodzdny gorodok" the urban-type settlement (established in 2009), I've already explained it in great lengths above. And no, your house is not a "populated place", at least not according to the definition applied to the articles in this category—for one, it is not notable. The line had already been drawn—see, for example, this explanation. Zvyozdny gorodok (the urban-type settlement) qualifies in spades (per bullet 3). What else can I do? I'm always happy to explain my position, but explaining it over and over again gets really tiresome after a while, especially when it's done on the same page. So, to summarize, I again apologize if my questions sounded harsh, but at the same time I am genuinely interested in getting a response. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2011; 17:28 (UTC)

• It is 1 place and the clearest way to write about it is in 1 article with appropriately referenced sections. If you disagree, you can of course make whatever articles you see fit which contain a suitable amount of relevant/referenced information. Aakheperure (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, Kansas City is also one place, yet we have four different articles about four different concepts associated with this place. Here we have a very similar situation.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 11, 2011; 22:10 (UTC)

The four "Kansas City" articles have respective populations: (1) 482,299, (2) 1,990,831 (3) 146,867 (4) 4,714. Those places are considerably different from each other. Mlm42 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A counter-example is the Atlanta metropolitan area, where the "MSA" and "CSA" are considerably different sizes, yet they have only one article. Mlm42 (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

...and yet we still have separate articles for Atlanta metropolitan area, Atlanta, and each of the twenty-eight counties the metropolitan area includes. These are all separate articles not because they have different populations, by the way (or we would have had an article about each and every street in the world the existence of which can be verified). They are all separate because enough sources exist to discuss each concept individually. If an is an obscure unit used by one agency for statistical purposes, it's unlikely an article about it would survive. On the other hand, if numerous different sources dealing solely with that entity (and not with that entity along with some other entity from which it derives), that entity deserves an article. There are numerous different sources discussing the urban-type settlement in question, which do not rely on the fact that it is an administrative wrapper around a space-training facility. They deal with the administrative aspect independently of anything else.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 14, 2011; 14:34 (UTC)

Star City is the English translation for zvezdni gorodok. There is only one article in russian covering both articles here, and I can see no reason to have seperate articles for the transliteration, and translation of the russian name. 178.176.123.87 (talk) 18:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Bars

Are there any bars in the city? Trying to source it, with problems, but rekon must be in a russian town!178.176.207.65 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

On their museum site they have descriptions of various tours, and "cafés or bars" are listed as an additional service. So I'd say yes, they should have at least one bar :) (although it's likely not in Star City the facility, but in the surrounding Zvyozdny gorodok the settlement).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2012; 16:02 (UTC)

Thank you - do you think that source is good enough to add cafes and bars to the amenities listed?178.176.123.87 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. For all we know they could ship the tourists to some outside location to eat. That, of course, is not very likely, but the source doesn't elaborate either way. I'll try finding something better.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2012; 18:16 (UTC)

OK, here's their café. Still need a better source for the bars, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 27, 2012; 18:18 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star City, Russia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140705215644/http://themoscownews.com/business/20130415/191440775/Investment-questions-for-Russias-closed-cities.html to http://themoscownews.com/business/20130415/191440775/Investment-questions-for-Russias-closed-cities.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223150357/http://www.gctc.ru/eng/index.html to http://www.gctc.ru/eng/index.html

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) 09:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Gallery section

Could a gallery section be added to this article? Thanks! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)