Talk:Upper Saviour–Transfiguration Monastery

Kseni-kam (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

What shall we call it?

1. This is titled "Draft:Upper Savior and Transfiguration Monastery" -- with "American" (non-British) spelling, and and.
2. Its infobox is titled "Upper Saviour-Transfiguration Monastery" -- with "British" (non-US) spelling and a hyphen.
3. Within an image caption, it's "Upper Saviour Transfiguration Monastery" -- with "British" (non-US) spelling, and neither and nor hyphen.
4. Within another image caption, it's "Upper Saviour's Transfiguration Monastery" -- with "British" (non-US) spelling, and a genitive construction.

Consistency is needed. Which one of these three four should it be, Kseni-kam? (Or should it be something else?) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 12:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC) [Augmented 04:00, 24 June 2026 (UTC)]

Kseni-kam, because the (brand new!) article uses "British" rather than "American" spelling (and only for this reason), I recommend some version with "saviour", not one with "savior". ¶ I'd guess that "Upper Saviour–Transfiguration Monastery" (with an en-dash) would be better than "Upper Saviour-Transfiguration Monastery" (with a hyphen); but because I don't understand the name, I am not sure. -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks a lot! I am reading all the comments you've left these days on this and other article and working on them between today and tomorrow. Kseni-kam (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I totally agree with the 'Upper Saviour–Transfiguration Monastery' version. It pretended to be that one, but in changing the keyboard settings to Russian, English and Spanish, and relying too heavily on translation tools, I missed some details. (Oops!) Thanks a lot for your help and guidance. Kseni-kam (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Dessiatines

Kseni-kam (and Imaginatorium? or indeed anyone knowledgable), I read:

The monastery owned 670 dessiatines and 490 sazhens of arable land, 396 dessiatines and 64 sazhens of hayfields, and 800 dessiatines and 1,132 sazhens of forest. The monastery itself and its farmstead occupied 8 dessiatines and 100 sazhens. Salt marshes occupied 570 dessiatines and 30 sazhens, a third of which was suitable land. A major road from Saratov to Uralsk passed through the monastery's lands, along which cattle were driven – it occupied 160 dessiatines and 1,000 sazhens; a country road occupied 18 dessiatines and 500 sazhens; marshes occupied 3 dessiatines and 1,000 sazhens; and the Bolshoy Irgiz River, lakes, and ravines occupied 228 dessiatines and 600 sazhens. In total, the monastery held 7,522 dessiatines and 841 sazhens of productive land, and 790 dessiatines and 740 sazhens of unproductive land – a combined total of 8,319 dessiatines and 1,561 sazhens.

(Citing Lebedev, A. A. (1911). К истории старообрядчества на Иргизе [On the History of Old Belief on the Irgiz]. Moscow: Typolithography of I. M. Mashistov.)

Historical Russian units of measurement tells us that there were (A) "Treasury/official desyatina" (казённая десяти́на, kazyonnaya desyatina) = 10,925.4 m² and (B) "Proprietor's [desyatina]" (владе́льческая десяти́на, vladel'cheskaya desyatina) = 14,567.2 m².

I'm very suspicious of such precision in conversions from units used over a century ago; but it's clear that "proprietor's" desyatina was considerably larger than "treasury/official" desyatina (precisely one-third larger, if we are to take seriously the square metre conversions above). So in 7,522 dessiatines and 841 sazhens (etc) above, which desyatina is meant? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Привет Хоарий!

The first thing we work out is that the quotation is not quite right (whether at the translation stage or whatever). Sazhen is a unit of length, and I believe that the first Russian attempt at internationalisation recalibrated it to be exactly 7 ft. So the units above are actually square sazhens. The value must have changed over time, and as you say, these conversions at six significant digits are ludicrous. This paragraph is a recitation of book-keeping, and for example "670 dessiatines and 490 [square] sazhens" means around 670.2 dessiatines. Such precision seems entirely out of place for this article, unless in a selective quotation.

Then what is a dessiatine? SOED gives that spelling, plus desyatin, and says it is 2400 sq. sazhens; I would go with that. Russian WP offers four more varieties - you can just read them, because they are shown as: a x b квадратных саженей, then at the end there's 'и другие', which seems to mean "If these aren't enough, we can come up with more". So I think the proper thing is to follow the 2400кс (kvadratic sazhen) guideline, but add a note that the dessiatine varied hugely from place to place and time to time. Then the "spellings" of this word in English are just all over the place. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. In terms of spelling, I didn't change it because it's one of those mentioned in the existing article on the topic (even though it's not a good one). What do you think would be best in this case? I see three possible solutions:

1. Convert it into sq. sazhens?
2. Or convert it into ft and leave a note that, in the cited text, it's written as 'dessiatine', 'desyatin', or whatever it's spelled?
3. Or make a summary of this abstract and omit this level of details?

Kseni-kam (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It's unrealistic to expect the 21st-century reader to understand either desyatin (however it's spelt) or (square) sazhen. When dealing with measures in fairly well-defined archaic units (e.g. "Troy pounds") one could add conversions into SI or if possible simply substitute those conversions. But it seems that for any conversion here, we'd need a span from X to Y (where X used the lowest possible/likely value of a desyatin and Y used the highest). And the conversion would become yet more tiresome as soon as some editor pointed out that MoS demands -- I think -- provision of US customary units as well.

So when summarizing or quoting a description that uses an archaic Russian unit such as desyatin, it would be better not to convert (or to substitute) but instead to provide a single explanatory (Efn) note -- one that briefly explains the complexities.

"Dessiatine(s)" occurs in just one quotation. This is from Lebedev (1911), which is a book in Russian. So I assume that Lebedev actually wrote not "dessiatine" but instead десятина or similar, in Cyrillic. Editors of this article are free to choose the best spelling. (I have no opinion.)

Even within this article, sazhen occurs in one context implying that it's a linear measure: "the monastery occupied a circumference of approximately 440 sazhens". (Small point: I wonder if "perimeter" might be better than "circumference".) This one occurrence aside, I don't think we need to use the term. Because, as Imaginatorium suggests, better than "670 dessiatines and 490 [square] sazhens" would be "670.2 dessiatines"; and better still, "670 dessiatines" (however spelt). (We could have another explanatory (Efn) note, acknowledging the simplification and giving the reason for it.) -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 01:52, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Wonderworks

Sorry, Kseni-kam, but "St. Nicholas the Wonderworker" sounds rather funny. (It reminds me of Wonderwoman.) If he was claimed to have performed miracles, perhaps "St. Nicholas the Miracleworker"; if he pre-echoed Алексе́й Григо́рьевич Стаха́нов, perhaps "St. Nicholas the Industrious". -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 23:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"octagonal drum (architecture)"

The link "octagon" is red. Is "octagonal drum" what is meant? -- Hoary (talk)^WWU 👍︎ 00:07, 24 June 2026 (UTC)