Talk:Samovar

It's just a Russian water urn

There is nothing original in Russian samovar. It's just a Russian made water urn. Water urns were known in all western Europe. Many early samovars looks like copies of charcoal heating/heated iron rod insert heating water urns of British origin and later models preserved a lot of British design elements. But there is no mentions at all about water urns in this article. Why? Is it because there is a goal in that? The goal being claiming "russian originality"? TeaDrinkingPerson (talk) 10:48, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Old talk

Is an explanations of soviet vs western voltages really in place in an article about the samovar?

How about just a link to such an explanation "One of the difficulties of exporting samovars to North America is the differeing voltages between the two countries"Datepalm17 08:22, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

They are not so much explanations of differences as of the adaptation, which is samovar-specific: you cannot apply it to, e.g., a TV set (as is you would need a Russian one :-).Mikkalai 02:06, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I (who idly stumbled upon this lively article) found the explanation amusing (along with the bit about ignorant bastards suing pants off) and potentially beneficial to people wanting to modify their Russian samovars. -- ke4roh 15:17, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm doing some editing (which I started before reading the bit in te Village Pump a couple of months ago), a little to make it more encyclopedish, but mostly to fix up the style. Some parts are being taken out in pursuit of the first goal, but I'm trying to leave in as much as I possibly can, and preserve the flavor as much as I can when I'm rewording and reworking. --♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:38, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I like it just the way it is. It brings in a little bit of russian humour to the thing and in a way makes it more authentic. 21:15, Aug 31, 2004 (in Western Kazakhstan)

Ditto. Leave the humor intact (or add to it if you are as funny as the author.) --spinoza 04:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound a boring toad: there's a link to the original if you want a comic article. This is an encyclopedia, and some formality of tone is expected. The section on electrical modification is absolutely scary and probably illegal. Tearlach 14:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly possible to leave a bit of whimsy in the article, without it resolving out to utter puffery. But I totally agree with you about the electrical mods. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:20, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sapog vs. bellows

217.132.130.128 wrote: Of course, there were special samovar bellows as well, so some historians claim the use of sapog to be a legend. Nonetheless it has been depicted numerous times, especially in caricature.

Of course, in modern days of numerous gadgets and for people that eat with nine different kinds of spoon, it is difficult to believe that some things were done in simple ways. Of course in the family of a rich kupets (merchant), there were bellows, coal grips, etc., and most surely they did't feed samovar with pine cones (another legend, these silly cones.... eh?). But an average peasant family considered these things to be vanity. Sapog did the job. What else do you want? And I did it myself. And by the way, they don't sell these samovar bellows today. So these are legend now. Mikkalai 17:42, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My russian friend just told me a story of how they'd turn a shoe or boot over and use that as their "bellows". =) -- Sy / ^(talk) 16:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried using pine cones in my samovar. They produced a huge volume of smoke, an acrid stench, and coated the heating chamber with resin. I'll never try THAT again! --Saxophobia 00:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed piece

During World War 2, factories of the defense industry -- and samovars have always been byproducts of military production -- were moved from the European part of the Soviet Union to behind the Ural Mountains, out of the reach of the fascist intruders. Thus, skillful manufacturers of samovars and other essential equipment were saved, despite the Nazi occupation of Tula. ?????? The Nazis were stopped before they ever took Tula. Read some history!

(Anon's "???" comment). Dubious first half of first sentence, and hence the conclusion. Not to say that the anon was right. Guderian was stopped at Tula. And Tula military industry was not evacualted (at least much of them). Tula samovars were bravely and successfully defended! Mikkalai 18:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Modern samovar?

I would like to see a picture of a modern electric samover to see what they look like now.159753 13:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Tea from where?

In order to find the origin of the Samovar, I suppose it would help if we knew where the tea came from in Russia, and when. The origin of the tea plant and its cultivation is in southwest China (Yunnan) and Benghal, but did Russia get it from there? Or was the samovar a Turkish invention / of Turkic people in central Asia, and why - perhaps because it is portable, fitting in a nomadic life style? - Marco (ecocam.com) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.241.149.64 (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Hmm... the chair must be a nomad invention since the nomads needed a portable resting device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.48.230 (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree LOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huntgoddess218 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Russian Saying

A friend of mine, who came to the United States from Moscow as an adult refugee, tells me that the Russian equivalent of the English saying, "to carry coal to Newcastle," (i.e. to provide what is not needed) is, "to take your samovar to Tula." Dick Kimball (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A reference to using a boot for a bellows is in Tolstoy , Resurrection , Date Pub ? Page 480 Published by Hamish Hamilton Ltd London (````) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob1357 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Commercial links

An anonymous editor operating from IP address 99.248.73.32 has repeatedly added commercial links to this and other pages. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, and such links will be removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Storm kettle suggestion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the rename discussion was merge into Samovar. For the main discussion itself, see Talk:Storm kettle#Name of article. -- 2009-06-06

---

The Storm kettle article has been tagged to suggest a merger here. --Fremte (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to support this. The Storm kettle article is being editted a bit and once it is a stable version, the move should occur in my opinion. Probably with a heading of Camping versions or similar. --Fremte (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the "Camping versions" header idea. Support. -kotra (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• strong oppose. Completely different, although similar in function things, with big articles. Wikipedia does not work in this way. Merge reverted. - Altenmann >t 00:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Are they really all that different? The only difference I see is the samovars described in this article are usually more ornate, and with more historical background. Since the basic structure is exactly the same, I would say the storm kettle is just a modern, simplified type of samovar. These are all basically the same object with different styles. It's entirely appropriate to merge when similar topics are covered in two articles and article size is not an issue... and it's not an issue in this case, since the length of this article with the storm kettle content is only 17KB, well below the minimum threshold for splitting an article for length reasons. -kotra (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Altenmann, thank you for your contributions. As I'm sure you were aware—from reading the extensive Talk: page and article histories before undertaking your edits—the discussion was initiated based on need to find a generic name. The conclusion was the generic name for a tordial internal boiler water heater with chimney at the top is a Samovar. A {{merge}} proposal was made, and after a period of time (with no objections) the move was acted upon. The material combined and tided up. It is appreciated that you wish to contribute to the discussion, but as your participation comes (significantly) after the former discussion and consensus, could I recommend starting a new proposal. I'm sure that you will have the full attention of all of those who were involved with the original discernment covering the outcome of the previous decision.

Attempting to undo this carefully planned merge has resulted in the loss of several edits making improvements to the Samovar article since the merge took place. Remember that Wikipedia is a collection of material arranged by topic, not by name. I would therefore like to thank you for your WP:BOLD change and per WP:BRD restore the outcome of the previous decision. You are welcome to start a new discussion regarding a proposal for a new split, or further move and I would encourage you to make a well-reasoned case to do so. —Sladen (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I do think the merge is correct after seeing it in place here. The argument that generic name for a tordial internal boiler water heater with chimney at the top is a Samovar is exactly right. There is a need for copy editting, but not for a revist to the merger IMHO. --Fremte (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got to agree, although an article titled Generic toroidal water heater / boiling kettle with internal chimney exiting the top is very tempting.htom (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

there is no "internal chimney" in samovar. It is "internal heating element": you fill it with combustibles, not with smoke. Timurite (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Timurite, thank you for joining and getting involved. As I'm sure you were aware—from having careful read the article content before undertaking your edits—this is what a storm/kelly/thermette is. The primary method of stoking the fire in these is by inserting combustible material through the hole/chimney in the top. Some of the variants also have a removable base to make starting the fire and cleaning easier. This is just like some of the Samovar being powered by electricity; it is a variation on the common theme. —Sladen (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me and read what I wrote. It is variation which makes a new gadget. Next thing you tell me that a teapot is nothing but a cooking pot with a snout. Timurite (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lets try to stay on-topic here. Perhaps you could explain how you perceive the fueling methods to be different. The smoke has to exit somewhere (upwards) and the fresh oxygen has to enter somewhere (ventilation holes). As far as I can see, this process is identical. This (first) hit on Google Images for "kelly kettle" clearly shows[1] a long-plume of fire exiting out of the top of the vessel. —Sladen (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge - they may seem similar but are not the same- I think a link from each one to the other is enough. For both articles, I think more effort should be spent adding refs to each of them than debating merging them. In a search I found nothing on google books discussing their likeness. DVD 04:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Storm kettle article as it stood was not valid; "storm kettle" is a trademarked name for one of the more minor commercial products of that type, but it was spuriously used as a generic term for all the products of a similar type. Other names were discussed, but only a merge to Samovar was found acceptable. If a merge to Samovar is not acceptable either, we will have to find a better destination for the content. At this moment I am not seeing a better one. Besides, two articles don't have to be exactly the same topic to have different sections in the same article. Merging is not just for topics that are exactly the same, it's also for topics that share the same area or otherwise need to be merged for context reasons. And as for Google Books, there are only a handful of results there for "storm kettle", "kelly kettle", "volcano kettle", or any of the other terms. So it doesn't say much about their likeness that no results there discuss it; it says more about the number of results there that discuss storm/kelly/volcano/etc kettles at all. -kotra (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A proper solution would be to do some research and find a generic name for the things discussed in "storm kettle" article, if all these names are but trademarks. I would start search from the terms "boiler" or "water heater". How about portable water heater, portable boiler? the latter two have plenty of google hits. Timurite (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A brief search shows that Kelly/storm/volcano kettle is essentially one and the same device. Hence generic "boiler" title is not goog (although redlinks must be done blue :-). Further, it seems that they originated from the same 19th century design, and different names are but result of marketing. While the name is trademarked, I don't see the design patented (looking only briefly). By the way, patents may be good sources for a generic descriptive name of the device. Sitting it under name "kelly kettle" may probably cause anger of competitors :-) How a bout merged title, Kelly/storm kettle? I see some use it. - Altenmann >t 18:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "slashed" terms like "Kelly/storm kettle" follow Wikipedia naming conventions; besides, that implies that the article describes only Kelly Kettles and Storm Kettles, leaving out the large number of other identical products with different names (like Volcano Kettle, your "Foul Weather Kettle" below, etc). -kotra (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Foul Weather Kettle -exact same! - Altenmann >t 18:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that there are more proprietary names for this, but I think "Foul Weather Kettle" is just another product name, probably trademarked. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Our search for a suitable generic name is documented at Talk:Storm kettle. Not for lack of trying, we couldn't find any generic name for this object that has any significant current usage. Thanks for the suggestions, but "portable water heater" and "portable boiler" are far too vague; they could refer to any kettle, or even electronic boilers. Nearly all of the google hits for those terms are not about this type of kettle. -kotra (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose merge -quite different devices. The rationale for merge was ungrounded. Obviously, Russian editors don't have it on active watchlist. I has no idea that storm kettle existed. I am not very active editor, so I didn't see what was happening, suddenly whamm!. It is like someone takes "motorcycle" article and merges "scooter" into it. After all, two wheels, motor, ... all exact same. Timurite (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Timurite (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Kotra, watch what you are doing. Timurite (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit changed another user's comment. -kotra (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

So what? It was typo, accidental keystroke I didnt notice. Tghis does not make me vandal to be reverted as whole. Have some respect to others, man. Timurite (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic discussion continued on user talk page) -kotra (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like "storm kettle" is not trademarkable term: the manufacturer's (Eydon Kettle)website says: "The famous Storm Kettle - ideal for all outdoor enthusiasts. STORM is the registered trade mark of the Eydon Kettle Co Ltd (no 2151189) The Popular Storm Kettle is a registered design (no 2070859)". If they owned the exact term "storm kettle" they would not hesitate to say so, if I am not mistaken. Concluding: Storm kettle is a good article title (beats Kelly kettle, which is definitely trademarked, and beats volcano kettle, which sounds too fancy to be close to 19th century original). The article may possibly be renamed if someone accidentally stumbles upon the oldtime name and it turns out to be popular until today. - Altenmann >t 18:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It is of note how both companies say nothing factual which would help to nail down the details of the origin of the design. It seems both starhed their trade in 1960s, while the design dates back to 19th century. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I would suggest to move (cut'n'paste) this section into Talk:Storm kettle, since it looks like it evolved away from "samovar" into talk about naming, rather than merging. - Altenmann >t 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic is generating lots of further discussion here, which is a Good Thing. Even those people who may have missed the previous {{mergefrom}} tags are getting involved. So it seems to be a good location to be having it. —Sladen (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is because "storm kettle" is on watchlists of creators only and not very interlinked to other pages to be seen via "Related changes". Timurite (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like all the more reason for having undertaken the merge... —Sladen (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

just to review

The original suggested name change for Storm kettle was Benghazi Boiler, except this would be like calling something by a name no one uses since world war 2. There appear to be no further generic names. The original Storm kettle article was called Kelly kettle, but then the owner of that brandname or maybe it was someone associated with another brandname it objected, so it got to be named to Storm kettle, then someone objected because this is a brandname too. It is merely splitting hairs to say that the item or brandname is called Storm. No-one would say pour me some water from the storm would they? They'd say storm kettle, right?

Further discussion suggested camping kettle or hollow kettle except that these names are pure inventions and not used by anyone. Then it was noted that these items operate just like a Samovar, and the name change issue changed to a merge - the name change appeared unresolvable.

While all the suggestions about research and naming conventions are all appreciated, this has all been done and is documented in the talk at Storm kettle. We simply appear to be back a square one with no resolution.

Q: If the merger is not on, then what is the generic name for Storm kettle? A: There isn't one. A2: Can we invent a name and just decide it's a Camping samovar, a Hollow kettle, or Water boiler without a generic name or Unnamed kettle that resembles a samovar.  ;) -Fremte (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a trademark does not forbid it to be used as an article title. The only problem is possible tug-of-wars in renaming back and forth "kelly"<->"storm". So far this is not happening, so no reason to worry. BTW The original Storm kettle article was NOT called Kelly kettle.There was Thermette; merge/redirected. You rpobably meant a demand in the history of Kelly Kettle page. The Kelly may be right: if it indeed holds the rights for "Volcano Kettle" brand, which is claimed to be over 100 years. "Storm kettle" dates from 1960s. BTW., there also is Ghillie kettle. Timurite (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That said, I find arguments for renaming storm kettle->kelly kettle in talk:storm kettle quite convincing, and I am rekindling the move requiest in Talk:Storm_kettle#Article_title. Timurite (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

origin of this article

After the talk in talk page I noticed that the link electric samovar was missing. I added a redirect. then decided to google the term. I was surprized to find a funny page with some content very close to wikipedia article. I became curious about who ripped off whom, since there is no mutual references. I looked thru page history and see that much content was preserved from this page (imported here as early in 2004 based of GFDL), but the reference (ext link) was later removed; I guess the source was considered "not good enough". Still, GFDL is GFDL. And, e.g., the section "Electric samovar" is nearly unchanged. So I guess we have to either restore the attribution or delete the infringing content. Opinions? Timurite (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that page says it is GPL, which is not compatible with the GFDL. I've removed the sections that were added with that edit. Perhaps some of the text added later which was not derivative of that page could be rescued and re-added. Angela. 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Glad to hear from you) Sorry, it was my bad: confused by alphabet soup. I removed the ext link as well: a private webpage of a person not known as an expert in samovars fails the today verison of WP:RS, although I can confirm that all his info (including funny stuff) is correct. - Altenmann >t 03:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Any thoughts about moving the pictures down to a gallery style? Might be a better layout. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And where is a a sectional view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.28.53 (talk) 11:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Fomin samovar-annotated-gray.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fomin samovar-annotated-gray.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In Persian

Samovar is pronounced samăvar in Persian.

If that how it is pronounced, shouldn't it be in represented in the IPA instead? Or did they (whoever wrote that sentence) mean "romanized", not "pronounced"? ZFT (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)