Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 10 June 2011

Russia Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• WT:RUS

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Accent marks in romanization

Once a while back I added an acute accent to a Russian romanization to represent the Cyrillic accent mark (Респу́блика Саха́, Respúblika Sakhá), but was reverted, because the romanization is a transliteration, not a transcription.

I don't understand the reasoning — if the Cyrillic has both letters and accents, it makes sense that the transliteration have letters and accents too. Original alphabet and transliteration should correspond as closely as possible. Perhaps there's the possibility readers will assume that the accents should always be included in writing the Russian word in English, but I don't think that's likely when the article name does not include them.

I think the accents should be included in the Misplaced Pages romanization, to help readers who cannot read Cyrillic to pronounce the words. The system accommodates English speakers by using y instead of j and ch instead of č, so why not allow inclusion of accents as well? The acute accent is not ambiguous, at least in the Misplaced Pages romanization. — Eru·tuon 19:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The accents are routinely added to Cyrillics to show stress, but only in reference works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias. That's a common approach, but it doesn't make the stress marks a part of the alphabet. On the other hand, accents are never added to Russian romanization to show stress (no major romanization system supports this approach, and we shouldn't encourage it either). Ideally, of course, the stress should be shown in the IPA transcription (in which case it can be removed from Cyrillic text), but then one would need to be comfortable with IPA to add a transcription where it's missing, whereas it only takes a native speaker (or someone who knows Russian fairly well) to add the stress marks to the Cyrillic spellings. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2011; 19:14 (UTC)

Erutuon, the accent marks in Russian is nothing more than a phonetic guide for people who probably don't know how the word is pronounced — they are widely used in keywords of Russian dictionaries. Just like furigana is not a part of the Japanese orthography, the accent marks are not a part of the Russian orthography, and they aren't supposed to have a special romanization.

Erutuon's opinion is a good example of how people confuse the accent marks in Russian with a part of its writing system, and it again convinces me that such accent marks should be removed from the English Misplaced Pages. Hellerick (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm aware that accents marks are only used in dictionaries, but that's not an argument against including them in Misplaced Pages, since Misplaced Pages provides basic dictionary-level information, such as etymology and pronunciation. Russian and Russian transliteration serve as both etymology and rudimentary pronunciation information. Accent marks are helpful, because word stress is variable, and vowel pronunciation is dependent on stress. If we want readers to stress Russian words correctly, or (if they understand Russian phonology) pronounce vowels correctly, we must mark accent. Obviously, we could remove the issue by adding IPA transcriptions, but we can't add them to every article, and not all readers can understand them. So, for now, adding accent marks is the best we can do. — Eru·tuon 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It is and argument, you insist on romanizing something which is not even correct Russian spelling Hellerick (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To Ezhiki: although accents aren't included in official transliteration systems, they are included in the schemes in some dictionaries, such as the primary dictionary on Dictionary.com and Wiktionary (although not in others, such as the Oxford English Dictionary). So, conventions don't always have to be followed. Maybe Misplaced Pages should follow them, though? I don't know. — Eru·tuon 04:53, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian dictionaries are made for Russian speakers, and show the pronunciation of unfamiliar words with accent marks.

English dictionaries are made for English speakers, and show the pronunciation of unfamiliar words with IPA or other similar phonetic notations.

Don't mix them together.

English speakers are not supposed to know how the Russian orthography works and what acute signs stand for. Hellerick (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Oxford Russian-English Dictionary also applies the accent mark (without IPA) for the Russian vocabs. The usage is orthodox. I suggest offering both IPA and Russian accent mark in the first sentence of lede, etymology section or language infobox (c.f. {{Chinese}}). Because English WP does not mean to be read by English-native readers only but other persons who might not be familiar with the IPA but with minimum knowledge of Russian accent mark. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a Russian-English dictionary, it's an English encyclopedia — the usage and the rules applied are completely different.

And the IPA transcriptions always are linked to the special IPA chart for Russian, while the accent marks have no explanation at all. Hellerick (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't make sense. If WP (not Wiktionary) should eliminate its partial functions as a dictionary, not even the IPA should be provided in any WP articles. Also unless there's a very common source of IPA for Russian words, I consider providing IPA for Slavic words to be an act of WP:original research. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not only Russian dictionaries that include accent marks. Some English dictionaries do as well, such as Dictionary.com, which I linked above. — Eru·tuon 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether English speakers know about something does not determine whether Misplaced Pages can use it. English speakers don't know Cyrillic, but we use Cyrillic in articles, because it's explained on pages such as Cyrillic alphabet. If we use accent marks, we merely have to explain them in an article such as Russian alphabet and link to the article. Then if a reader doesn't understand what accent marks mean, or assumes that they are a constant part of orthography, it's the reader's fault, not ours. — Eru·tuon 00:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should bring this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) to gain wider discussion. In any case, I still prefer both accent marks and IPA to be indicated in the first sentence of Russian/Slavic-related articles. Accent mark is in fact more intuitive than IPA when the reader is more familiar with the former. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Re common names

So let me get this straight.

• If a person is named Александр, and he is well-known, he will be referred to as "Alexander" on the English Misplaced Pages.
• If a person is named Александр,, and he is not well-known, but there are some mentions of him in English source, he will be referred to as "Alexander" on the English Misplaced Pages (since that is how the sources will refer to him, since "Alexander" is the common rendering and correct translation of Александр".)
• But if a person is named Александр, and he is known only in Russia, than he will be referred to as "Aleksandr" on the English Misplaced Pages, since -- there being no English sources -- we are thrown back on this guideline, which prescribes transliteration rather than translation.

This seems quite wrong. I don't much care if people with the same name are called differently, but here it is actually and intentionally built into the guideline: big shot=Alexander, small fry=Aleksandr.

I am very much of the opinion that where practicable, terms should be translated rather than transliterated. In the case of proper names of persons its arguable. But - to the extent we don't do this, we are (I guess) taking an idiosyncratic and pedantic approach, yes?

So we shouldn't do that. So how about something like this: "If a person's first name has a common English equivalent, use that. Otherwise, use the criteria outlined below..." Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Re place names

OK, the personal names thing (see section immediately above) is arguable, I suppose. But for place names, we definitely should render the meaning, if it has one. This seems incontrivertable to me, and in fact is what is generally done.

But the guideline doesn't make this clear, at all. Fortunately, the guideline is generally ignored. The article for the entity "Парк Победы" is titled "Victory Park" and (I hope and assume) no one is going to move that article to "Pobedy Park". We all understand that that would be silly. Right?

However... I just came across this article: Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro). Obviously this article should be named Victory Park (Moscow Metro). (Interestingly, the article uses Template:lang-en to render the English name in the body of the article: Victory Park. If the English name is Victory Park, in what language then is the article title? No language. Russlish, perhaps.

How did an error like this come to be? Perhaps someone took the guideline literally. Obviously we need to correct the guideline to be in line with common sense and actual practice, to avoid errors such as Park Pobedy (Moscow Metro).

And I see other instance of what I would say are highly problematic renditions. For instance, I see all instances of "Автозаводский район" rendered as "Avtozavodsky District". But this is just wrong. There is no word "Avtozavodsky" in English. What is meant is the Auto Factory District. Using this name has the virtue of, well, imparting information: all of the districts named Автозаводский район are, indeed, near an automobile factory. This is a useful piece of information to know about the district, yes? And translating rather than merely transliterating the name imparts this information. And imparting information is what what we are here for.

I think we all basically understand this, which is why we don't say "Avtozavodsky Raion" (I hope), and why Moskovsky Victory Park and Maritime Victory Park and similar articles are named correctly. (And, when you get down to it, we render "собака" as "dog" rather than "sobaka" and so forth).

And then I ran across something similar just now when someone changed "Stavropol District" to "Stavropolsky District". But this is silly. It is true that 1) in Russian, many names have possessive adjectives attached, and 2) a letter-for-letter transliteration of Ставропольский is "Stavropolsky", but: so what? What does that have to do with English? It doesn't have anything to do with English. We don't use a possessive adjectives in these cases.

I mean, if you wanted to be super pedantic, you should translate "Ставропольский район" as "District associated with Stavropol" I guess (not that I am recommending that), but "-sky"? What does that add? It adds nothing, and it actually removes meaning -- makes it harder to understand what the entity is. If I know what Stavropol is, I can quickly understand that Stavropol District is a district that is associated with Stavropol, probably by containing it. But "Stavropolsky"? I can probably tease out "Stavropol" from that (or maybe not), and maybe make the leap of cognition to guess that "Stavropolsky" and "Stavopol" are related, but how does having to do that extra work help me? It doesn't.

And I think the guideline doesn't at all make this clear. Here's what I'd say. As a general overarching rule:

When possible, translate. When this is not possible, transliterate.

That is what we are here for, right? To render meaning. I have made the necessary changes, hoping that I have made my case fairly unassailable. Herostratus (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What's so special about Russian? Nobody translates Unter den Linden so why we have to translate Avtozavodsky? We are supposed to provide the names themselves, not their meanings. Not to mention that it would be quite difficult to understand, whether the translation is possible — following such rules not only would contradict the English traditions of foreign place names, but would create quite chaotic situation in Misplaced Pages as well. Hellerick (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully support Hellerick in that. Proper names originally in a non-Latin alphabet are usually transliterated, not translated. Translation for many (if not most) of them would be impossible, or even when it is "possible", multiple variants may exist ("Avtozavodsky" is a case in point). All this makes organizing information on a large scale nothing short of a horror. On the other hand, there are, of course, places (like Moscow), for which a well-documented conventional English name exists, but the guideline already covers such cases. All in all, the rationale behind the existing guideline is the real-world practices. I've never seen a map or a geographic publication which would "translate" geographic names in a manner you are proposing. If you want to convey the meaning(s), make a note in the article's body.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 15, 2011; 12:09 (UTC)

There's nothing special about Russian, but this page is about Russian, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. "Unter den Linden" is not translated because that name is famous and therefore would be exempted under the "If major English dictionaries do not list the place" exception. However, while I don't know how German translation is done here, I would hope and assume that a generic Ulme Straße would be rendered as "Elm Street" and not left for the reader to blip over. "We are supposed to provide the names themselves, not their meanings"... um, I thought that providing meaning is kind of the very essence of what a reference work is supposed to do?

As to "would create quite chaotic situation in Misplaced Pages as well" and "All this makes organizing information on a large scale nothing short of a horror"... First of all: Why would this be so? I can't image why this would be so. Could you provide an example? Perhaps you are thinking of this: one person might translate "Avtozavodsky" as "Auto Factory" and another might translate it as "Car Plant". Is that what is worrying you? Well, stop worrying! Of course this is true, but so what? Ambiguity is inherent in any translation of most terms.

For Victory Park (Tolyatti) I have translated Парк Победы as "Victory Park". I could, I suppose, have translated it as "Triumph Park" (well, not very justifiably, as that would not have been idiomatic, but nevermind that for now). Well, so what if I had? Either way, "Victory Park" or "Triumph Park" tells the reader what the park is about and what meaning the name of the park has to a native speaker, while "Park Pobedy" would have told the reader nothing. In my book "telling the reader something" is better than "telling the reader nothing". Am is missing something here? The Misplaced Pages is supposed to exist to serve the readers. Right? The convenience of editors in organizing information is quite secondary.

However. Appealing to accepted practice is worthwhile. But, first, accepted practice is more variant than you are you are making out (I cracked open my atlas, and I find one country named "Côte D'ivoire" and another "French Guiana", and similarly throughout: some terms are translated ("Federation") and some not ("Oblast") according to I do not know what rubric -- if any.

Two, "accepted practice" is, to my mind, insufferably pedantic often enough. We don't have to be bound by the dead hand of the 20th Century, you know. We can choose to be, but to mind only if there's a good reason. "This is how it's always been done" is not something to be dismissed out of hand, but neither is it by itself sufficient to prescribe all future behavior. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian proper names are never translated in reference works such as encyclopedias or maps. They are occasionally translated in books, but the only purpose of doing so is to convey the meaning to readers. We, on the other hand, can convey the meaning via other means (an explanation in the lede, a redirect, a piped link, a description on the dab page, a hatnote, and so on). Straight out translation of the proper names is just as silly as translating people's last names, even though the latter is also done occasionally when it serves a purpose.

As for Avtozavodsky et al., you are right on the money about what worries me. I can't, however, take your "stop worrying" advice seriously—there is no point of introducing more entropy into a system which can be well-organized with some effort. If you ever tried to organize information on a topic, having to deal with "auto/automotive/car plant/factory/whatever" to refer to just one place is hell indeed. Incidentally, this hell is one of the main reasons why foreign place names are mostly transliterated and not translated. Imagine yourself as a researcher trying to collect information on a place when that place is called by a myriad of different names. Not my idea of "serving the reader" for sure!

As for the examples you requested, consider these—I think they show very well that your approach is far from bulletproof (and the list is nowhere near complete; these are just the ones I immediately came up with after thinking this over for five minutes). And while these may sound ridiculous, I assure you that if you proposal were to be passed, we wouldn't be waiting long for someone to show up and start implementing just these ridiculous examples because "the guidelines say so". All of these names "can be translated", but I hope you see why they shouldn't be:

1. Krasnoznamensk. Should we move both articles to "Red Banner"? Why not?
2. Dalnegorsk. Shall we move it to "Far in the Mountains"? That's what it's translates to, after all, and fairly unambiguously, too.
3. Krasny. Should we move all of the entries on this page to "Red"? Including the rivers? And the crater on Mars? Why not?
4. Krasny Oktyabr vs Krasnooktyabrsky. Move these all to "Red October"? Even though the originals are different words? Why not?
5. What of the Russian names which are really from the local languages? These can be translated as well, right? Should something like Cheboksary be moved to "fortress of the Chuvash" (because that's what the Chuvash name means)?

One can come up with many more, if needed. And if these examples seem ridiculous to you, but "Victory Park" does not, can you describe what the difference between these cases are, and how your proposed amendment is supposed to deal with those differences?

To answer your question, yes, Misplaced Pages is supposed to serve the readers, but it is supposed to do so in a way that makes sense. Translating the proper names isn't such a way, and there are plenty of other ways to convey the meaning which are both helpful to readers and follow the real-world practices. I also can't agree with you on your view of accepted practices and "the dead hand of the 20th century". Misplaced Pages is not in business of inventing "new and better" naming practices. We are supposed to look at what is used out there in the real world and adopt those practices the best we can. Our whole manual of style is built around the "dead hand of the 20th century"; if you think the approach is so wrong, why not bring it up there and see where it goes?

The bottom line is that when the real world encyclopedias start translating proper names of places in Russia, we can start thinking about doing the same. Until then, we'd better stick with what works.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 18, 2011; 14:23 (UTC)

And Yasnaya Polyana would become Clear Clearing :) Hellerick (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it wouldn't have to be "Clear Clearing". We deal with Lake Nyasa by calling it that and not Lake Lake (not that we would anyway, as Lake Nyasa is a famous name, but even it wasn't we could use common sense in this case).

Well, Ëzhiki, you make some convincing points. Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do see your point. I guess there is a tension between organizing the information and presenting it. And as you say if a translation is provided nearby that helps a lot. Although this isn't done, often enough. "...located in the Avtozavodsky District (Auto Factory District) of..." would perhaps be the kind of construction that we should consider using more often.

I guess there is no perfect answer. I do think that the scheme used by other similar reference works is worth treating with considerable respect (although not total respect). I don't want to fight to create a whole new paradigm, especially with an editor as erudite as you. I will cogitate some more on what you say and may have some specific suggestions we can discuss, for instance on the possessive adjectives I mentioned. Herostratus (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am glad that my examples were of some value :) By the by, I myself have nothing against supplying a literal translation next to the proper name, when doing so is indeed helpful. Most often, however, it isn't. The reader for the most part doesn't really care what the name of a place means, unless, of course, the meaning of the name is the information being sought. For other purposes, one can always click through and see what the name means. If a person is reading an article about some museum (and this is a purely theoretical example, by the way), and the article says that the museum is located in "Avtozavodsky City District", they couldn't care less that "Avtozavodsky" means "car factory", especially considering that just because a city district is called "Avtozadovdsky", it doesn't mean there is still a car factory there! Some of the names are historical and their meaning is obsolete, so inserting a literal translation may not only be out of place, but be misleading as well.

As for the adjective forms, I can additionally point out that even identical adjectives do not always derive from the same noun, or that they may (or even should) be translated differently. Zavodsky City District literally means "pertaining to a plant", but it also means "beyond the water(s)", which is not a cognate but merely a homonym. Now imagine the confusion when a plant is built in the "beyond the waters" district (a true story, incidentally, even though I don't remember off the top of my head in which city this happened—the locals, however, are still arguing which meaning came first). Stavropolsky District in Samara Oblast is not called after this Stavropol, but after Tolyatti, which used to be called Stavropol when the district was formed. The three districts called Petrovsky are not called so after some famous "Peter" or Mr. Petrov, but for various other reasons—the ones in Saratov and Tambov Oblast, correspondingly, after their administrative centers Petrovsk and Petrovskoye, and the one in Stavropol Krai because it was formed on the basis of Petrovskaya Volost. Renaming all three entities to, correspondingly, "Petrovsk District", "Petrovskoye District", and "Petrovskaya District" is the only option if you want to "translate" them properly, and yet all it does is complicate things for the readers (many of whom would expect the entities of the same type with identical names in Russian to have identical names in English as well, and who would have no clue how to construct the name of the district they need, even when they know what it is called in Russian and are familiar with transliteration), use the variants which are not used in English, and, worst of all, does not even get rid of the adjective form! This is precisely the problem the organizations dealing with the standardization of geographic names deal (and those organizations include encyclopedia foundations, of course), and this is precisely why this has long been dealt with with the help of romanization. Every now and then you will see a source which will translate a proper name, but that doesn't mean it's an established practice. No English reference work ever translates proper names except as a clarification (which is the same way we are doing it—by providing a short note in the lead), or when the said translation is so commonly used that it is instantly recognizable. Names of most places in Russia hardly qualify as instantly recognizable, no matter how you present them in English. We here follow the same practice other English encyclopedias and reference works are following, and if the reader happened to stumble upon a quirky translation of a proper name, we should (and will) do our best to lead him/her to the article with the help of redirects, dabs, hatnotes, and what-else-have-you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 25, 2011; 20:22 (UTC)

Does the wording of this guideline actually reflect consensus?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Template:Rfcid

The guideline for place names currently reads:

A conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over default romanization at all times. In particular, if major English dictionaries do not list the place, then default romanization should be used.

Some editors have been enforcing this guideline very strictly. Even if there is evidence to demonstrate that a place has a common English name, this policy insists that if the place is not listed in a "major English dictionary" then the default romanization must be used. So I ask: do other editors support or oppose the current guideline for place names? Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses

• Oppose. The guideline essentially redefines the term "conventional name of a place" to something which is not consistent with WP:COMMONNAME. Only a small number of places are actually listed in major English dictionaries. Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per nominator. As near as I can tell, this is the only romanisation guideline on wikipedia that limits placenames to major English dictionaries ignoring reliable sources from other Geographical and Language organisations. This should either be corrected or the whole guideline downgraded to an essay on the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per nom; the present text is absolutely unacceptable. As a relevant example, Orel is much more common in English than Oryol; whether it is quite common enough to squeeze into the few pages an English dictionary can spare for a world-wide gazeteer is another question entirely, which should not decide our article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  Britannica is hardly a gazeteer, and "quality encyclopedias" is explicitly in the WP:COMMONNAME's list of sources one is supposed to use to establish the common name. As I mentioned below, it's unfortunate that the wording of WP:RUS ended up with "dictionaries" being listed as the only acceptable source. The original intent was to include all major reference works.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 19:13 (UTC)

  That that version of Britannica chooses to use pidgin English, as here is not our fault; it is past time for NCGN reconsider our recommended references, since Encarta is no longer supported. But this text does not even reach to the Britannica, as you yourself admit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  Britannica is using "pidgin English" now? Really? Based just on your observations, no doubt? And, with Oryol/Orel, unrefined google hits is your best evidence? Did you know that the word "oryol" means "eagle", and is bound to pop up in all kinds of contexts which have nothing to do with the city? For that matter, how about finding an example that's not based on the unfortunate fact that the Russian letter "ё" is mostly optional in common nouns (and tends to be omitted even in the proper nouns), which would skew the romanized results even more? That same things also goes for Korolyov, by the way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 13:48 (UTC)

• Support. For those who don't know, when WP:RUS was up for adoption, it was universally supported, mostly by people whose editing was to be affected by it, and who knew firsthand the idiosyncrasies of the Russian romanization (which are many). With all due respect, I'm not seeing this kind of people among those who commented so far. When it comes to romanization, "common usage" cannot possibly be determined by google tests or even by studying the usage by "Geographical and Language organisations". Since there are quite a few systems of romanization of Russian, such tests produce the results which are pretty much random. It is that randomness the wording of WP:RUS is supposed to eliminate—we aren't serving our readers well if we have to make them guess at which spelling any given article is supposed to be found! If a place name is not found in the dictionaries, it is romanized using one of the available romanization systems. That is precisely what the "Geographical and Language organisations" do—WP:RUS borrows the practice, not the end result. If "dictionaries" is seen as too restrictive, let's replace it with "reference works" (which would cover the encyclopedias, maps, and such)—that was the original intent anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 18:34 (UTC)

I believe Ezhiki is referring to this discussion in 2007. But people who broadly supported the guideline raised specific concerns, including the "Tolyatti" example. Mlm42 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one I was referring to. Note, however, that the specific concerns weren't enough for those people to oppose the whole guideline. I very much doubt one can devise a guideline everyone will be happy with—in the current edition of WP:RUS I myself don't like a few points which were results of earlier discussions and compromises.

I do oppose much of the guideline; I am genuinely shocked that it has been permitted to stand in this condition. Most of it is contrary to usage and to policy.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, could you please comment on my proposed re-wording? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 19:08 (UTC)

• Oppose. It would be OK if it said something like "...if major English dictionaries, atlases, encyclopedias, and similar reference works do not list...". Herostratus (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  That actually was the original intent, and is something I proposed below as well. I'd support this kind of change myself.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 13:48 (UTC)

Discussion

• To avoid instruction creep, perhaps this guideline should be demoted to something like {{WikiProject style advice}}, since this page appears to enjoy strong support within Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Russia. Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The text here that you're citing is a reflection of Misplaced Pages:Use English, and Misplaced Pages:Use common names. This policy is only applicable where a romanized name is required due to a common English equivalent being unavailable. This RFC here doesn't have the right to over-ride the site wide standards, without some sort of exemption being added to WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME, in my view.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • .. Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, but I'm claiming that this guideline is in fact not consistent with those site-wide policies. Mlm42 (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    It says right above the sentence you quoted directly When possible, use a conventional English name (as defined below) instead of the default romanization. What exactly is the issue, here? Can you point to an example?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    The issue is that the guideline redefines "conventional English name" to something else. The guideline insists that for a name to be conventional, it has to be listed in a "major English dictionary". Mlm42 (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    I don't see that at all... who's interpreting this to say that? Is there an example that you have in mind? Is there any previous discussion about this at all? Why did this jump immediately to an RFC?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    See this archived discussion. The example that prompted me to come here is Talk:Korolyov (city), which I think should be called "Korolev". Mlm42 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    I don't know, I'm all confused now, so I'm striking my vote above... this seems to be a circular argument, for some reason. I'm obviously not clear on what you're proposing.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    I think the current wording should be changed so that we are allowed to use sources other than "major English dictionaries" for determining the conventional English usage. Mlm42 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    oooooh... so, basically, you're proposing that the last sentence: In particular, if major English dictionaries do not list the place, then default romanization should be used. should be removed?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    Well, that sentence by itself doesn't change the meaning.. that sentence is only restating what has already been said. Mlm42 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

    So, yea, I think I see your position now. Just to be clear though, can you propose an actual re-wording please?
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition to my support in the section above, I don't quite agree with the premise of this RfC. WP:RUS does on surface seem to override the more general common names provisions, but if you look at it closer, it only filters out the randomness the use of multiple romanization systems introduces. Looking up a place name in a dictionary (or a similar reference work) unambiguously establishes a "common English name" when one is found; when the entry is not in a dictionary, all other cases (the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals) result in a romanized name produced using the romanization system the "major international organizations", "English-language media outlets", etc. happens to standardize on. Case in point: if a certain place name is most often romanized using the ALA-LC system (perhaps because that place has a rich history, and historians tend to use ALA-LC, thus skewing the usage patterns into its favor), and then suddenly there is a disaster there which media outlets start to cover (using, as they usually do, the BGN/PCGN system), the balance would suddenly and very visibly change. Does it mean the "common English name" has just changed as suddenly? Not really. Common names don't change abruptly, so the logical conclusion is that we weren't dealing with the "common name" to begin with. What we were dealing with, of course, is the result of the application of one (random) romanization system to the original Cyrillic. Not really the same, is it? WP:UE, by the way, recognizes this caveat by referring editors directly to the language-specific romanization guidelines when a place name is not originally in the Latin alphabet.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 19:06 (UTC)

Regarding Does it mean the "common English name" has just changed as suddenly?, I'm sorry but yes, it does. Common names really do change abruptly all the time. I understand how that can be frustrating, but that's why we have a UCN policy. UCN refers editors to the language-specific guidelines only as a last resort, when there simply isn't enough English language coverage for a common name to be established. You're meeting resistance here because you're trying to reinvent (or at least reinterpret) fairly well established policy.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

One possible rewording is:

If the name has a common English-language form, then it should be used (per WP:UE). Otherwise, the default romanization, as defined below, should be used.

The rest of the guideline contains some points on how to decide between multiple English-language forms. I think it's best to leave "common English-language form" up to a certain amount of interpretation, to avoid instruction creep. Mlm42 (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

But WP:UE explicitly refers to the romanization guidelines when the original name is not in the Latin alphabet:

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as with Tchaikovsky and Chiang Kai-shek). For a list of transliteration conventions by language, see Misplaced Pages:Romanization.

The new wording would simply create a circular reference and does not address the problem of prevailing romanization variants creating an illusion of having a "common name" where none in fact exists. Having a clarification to that effect is absolutely essential, or we might as well not have a guideline at all. Do you have a reason to think that generic "reference works" (instead of "dictionaries") would not leave room for a certain amount of interpretation?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 19:28 (UTC)

It still seems like needless instruction creep. It's conceivable that the common English usage doesn't agree with every "reference work". What's wrong with just saying "common English usage"? Mlm42 (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, my understanding is that the main purpose of this guideline is to spell out the default romanization rules. Mlm42 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Just saying "common English usage" is impractical, because we are simply referring the editors to a more generic guideline. The very reason of having a more specific guideline is to provide more specific guidance for a narrowly defined problem set (which in this case is Russian names). Vaguely telling people to use the "common English name" and "romanization" is precisely what we had before WP:RUS had been adopted. In practice, it was a living maintenance hell—articles were being moved left and right and left again, people were inventing their own romanization systems and moved articles in bulk according to their visions, and readers were left wondering just where in hell they are supposed to find the articles they need, and why some places which shared same name in Russian were under different titles in the English Misplaced Pages (and that one was mostly because they were romanized using different systems).

What WP:RUS does is clarify the "common name" provision with the Russian romanization-specific problems in mind. It very simple to follow in practice (look the name up and if it's not there, use the default romanization; and if the reference works do not agree, use the one that matches the default romanization or is the closest to it) and it just plain works (and even if in 0.01% of cases it doesn't, it's nothing that a well-designed redirects/disambiguation net can't take care of). You are basically proposing to dismantle a working system just to accommodate a handful of odd cases (some of which aren't even that odd).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 20:03 (UTC)

I understand that for you, someone who oversees thousands of these articles, it makes life easier. But that doesn't mean it's what Misplaced Pages's wider community wants. Instruction creep is bad. Mlm42 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, are you saying that the instruction creep is so bad that the usability for the readers and "easier life" for editors who can contribute more content in a "convenient" environment should be sacrificed? I would argue that's a small price to pay for reducing the maintenance overhead and making the locations of the articles being sought more predictable! It's not that much a creep even; just a sentence, and one that addresses an actual problem at that. I, for one, (and I assume you, too) would rather contribute content than ward off the folks determined to move hundreds articles to the "official Russian government" spelling (one which most Anglophones have never seen and won't ever see again), because, see, it's "an established transliteration system", as per WP:UE, and we have no other guidelines explaining why it's not the right approach. If you think I'm exaggerating, I am not. This was a common problem before 2007.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 20:49 (UTC)

Official Russian government spelling is not necessarily "common English usage". Common English usage in reliable sources is what it is, I don't see a reason to define it further. Your main point seems to be that it's easier to use default romanization instead of common English usage (unless dictionaries say otherwise), and therefore that's what we should do.. I'm not buying this argument. The "easier" solution is not always the right one. Mlm42 (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd support rewording the text to User:Mlm42's proposal above. The "major English dictionary" qualifier that is currently being used is certainly odd. It looks like User:Ezhiki's attempt to standardize all article names in this area (or at least the vast majority of them) to a narrow system, which is the kind of thing that regularly meets with fairly significant resistance in Misplaced Pages. I'm surprised that this hasn't come up sooner than now, honestly.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't come before now because the system works fine as is (the approach may seem odd to a person unfamiliar with the idiosyncrasies of romanization, but it is a standard practice followed by the geographic organizations and publications, which is why we have adopted it as well). Is there a reason why you think that replacing overly restrictive "dictionaries" with "reference materials" wouldn't work? The guidelines, after all, are supposed to be useful in practice; it's no help to either readers or editors if we have to follow the guidelines which are overly vague and do not address obvious problems.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 20:49 (UTC)

Other policy simply states "reliable sources". Why should Russian articles be so different from the rest of Misplaced Pages?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not very different, really. As I've already explained above, since multiple romanization systems of Russian exist, querying for the most common spelling would produce a pretty much random result for any given place; one that's not even necessarily stable in time. A "common English name" should not be dependent on the random choice of a romanization system by various sources. All those variants are technically correct, of course, but just because one is more common than another doesn't automatically make it the "common English name"; not in the sense WP:COMMONNAME establishes. This is not a problem most place names have, only those which are not originally written in Latin script. WP:RUS addresses this very specific problem by narrowing down the sources to those which can unambiguously be used to establish a common English name—with the general reference materials being the prime choices. All other sources would either use the spellings provided by those dictionaries and encyclopedias, or adhere to one of the existing romanization systems. Hence, we do the same—we either take the variant that can unambiguously be shown to satisfy the commonality test, or we use an established romanization system instead. This is too specific of a problem to be addressed in a general overview guideline such as WP:COMMONNAME. Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 9, 2011; 21:21 (UTC)

Ezhiki, you seem to be too focused on the technicalities of Romanisation. Doing so is like comparing the reasons for other English common Names; we do not for instance worry about sources that refer to Bill Clinton as "William Clinton" or "Willy Clinton" or "Will J Clinton" although they are technically correct alternative article titles we don't worry about the technical reasons for why each of these variations exist or which is the most technically accurate (in this case "William Jefferson Clinton" is technically most accurate), we choose the one that appears most often in reliable English sources hence "Bill". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The whole point I'm trying to make is that it's not just a technicality; it's a valid concern which is specific to romanization and is not normally a concern in other cases. The Clinton example has nothing to do with what I'm trying to explain here; it's not even a close analogy.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 13:41 (UTC)

I was part of the consensus that wrote the sentence Ezhiki quotes. It does not mean what he would like it to mean; it was never intended to do so; it merely provides what we do when, as often, the rule of following what English does gives no clear guidance.

That is, of course, more than simply counting google hits, although that is part of it; for more, see WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name. I am changing my !vote and removing the disputed text; it is already plainly not consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

How about at least giving a semblance of courtesy to the opposing party and letting the discussion run its course before making any changes? Why such hastiness?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 13:41 (UTC)

For two reasons: There is no consensus on the sections that invoke dictionaries - there would be none if every good soul who !voted in 2007 were to be canvassed and appear; where there is no consensus we should be silent. We may well be able to attain consensus on somewhat modified texts; but retaining an alleged "consensus" because a minority (or even a non-consensus majority) still supports it is the demand of our more unscrupulous bullies; I would deeply regret seeing Ezhiki join them.

I am not interested in hearing from those who would propound "It's in Russia; always adopt the Russian spelling." Misplaced Pages has opposed such nationalism everywhere else: to my knowledge, in Greece, Turkey, Poland, Germany, and Iran. No reputable editor would suggest we do so for Russia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question about why all these changes have to be done in such haste. The very reason this RfC has been filed is to gauge the consensus and to determine whether it has changed (which it very well may have). RfCs are recommended to be kept open for thirty days so all interested parties have a chance to comment; and you are ready to call it a done deal the day after it has been open? What's going on?

On your second remark, I have no idea where you got the impression that the guidelines advocate to "always adopt the Russian spelling". In fact, even if you read WP:RUS in its present form, it's very hard to miss all those "use English" pleas, and an editor is actually required to jump through all sorts of hoops to check usage before s/he even gets to the "default romanization table", which is supposed to take care only of the cases for which English usage can't unambiguously be determined or simply does not exist. It seems you are fighting a problem which you yourself have created, and to call the intentions of the people who !voted in 2007 as "nationalism" is just a low thing to do. What ever happened to assuming good faith? Why in the world would you think that the only reason WP:RUS is worded the way it is is to uphold someone's nationalistic attitudes?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 16:27 (UTC)

Place names

The following text is largely unacceptable. It is contrary to clear policy, and its existence should be incompatible with various ArbCom decisions on Eastern Europe:

A conventional name of a place is the name listed in major English dictionaries and should be preferred over default romanization at all times. In particular, if major English dictionaries do not list the place, then default romanization should be used.

• No, such a listing is sufficient; it is much more than necessaery.
  • This part is being addressed immediately above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 15:23 (UTC)

Clarifications

1. If a dictionary lists several variants of the name, use the main one.

   Example: use "Moscow", not "Moskva"

   • Unnecessary; part of the general rule to use the most common name, since dictionaries will list in that order.
     • This clarification pertains to cases when multiple dictionaries list the names in different orders. One would take the main one from each dictionary, and compare the usage of the main terms across all of the dictionaries. I'd agree that the clause could use some rewording to make the intent more clear.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 15:23 (UTC)

1. If different dictionaries list different main variants, use the one that's closest to the default romanization guidelines.
   • Nonsense; there are undoubtedly dictionaries so misguided as to leave the second s out of Saint Petersburg, or to insert a k; but English spelling of that name has been clear for three centuries.
     • Nonsense; there are no such misguided dictionaries among the major ones we are supposed to be using for this purpose. Even if you can find one with a typo or a genuine mistake, it would be overwhelmed by the lack of such typos/mistakes in other similar dictionaries. The purpose of this clause is not to push an uncommon spelling through, as you seem to be implying; it is to help choose a spelling when dictionaries disagree fairly evenly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 15:23 (UTC)

1. Example: suppose one dictionary lists the city of Тольятти under "Tolyatti" and another one—under "Togliatti". "Tolyatti" should be used as it is the variant produced by the default guidelines.

   • Illiterate; just as Saint Petersburg is named after Saint Peter, this city is named after
     • Palmiro Togliatti is I suppose what you forgot to paste. While we are at it, can we also move Yekaterinburg to Catherineburg] (because it's named after Catherine the Great)? Putting aside the fact that romanization is dependent only on the original Russian spelling and not on the origins of the name, here we have yet another case where you put your opinions over what the sources say (or "might say"). This is the third time you are discarding valid reference works which don't agree with your views. They are all either "pidgin English", "misguided", or "illiterate". All I can say is that it's just swell to finally have someone in-house who can tell us exactly which dictionaries and encyclopedias are rubbish, and which are good to use!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 15:23 (UTC)

- #:Example: the name of the city of Чебоксары is romanized "Cheboksary". The Chuvash name "Shupashkar" is mentioned in the lead, but cannot be used as the main title. - #:Rationale: spelling of names of Russian places used in English sources is normally derived from the name in Russian, as local languages are rarely employed in international communications.

It is usually true that places in Russia (whatever their ultimate origin) are most often called by the Russian name in English. When that is the case, this is redundant (and that will usually be the case); When it is occasionally false (and it will be sometimes), this is the voice of one contending ethnic nationalism. It is shameful, and contrary to neutrality, to let this stand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, based on your eloquently voiced opinion above, you have declared this to be "consensus" and found it perfectly alright to remove the whole section from the text of the guideline without waiting for as much as one comment to appear? Is this how we do discussions now? Great. I should start doing RfCs more often as I clearly am missing out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 15:23 (UTC)

No, you should admit that this page is your private essay. Your bad-faith revert war is as unacceptable as the wording of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If this page were to be general advice, not the private opinion of a Russian editor, it could well say something like:

Many languages are spoken in Russia, and many place and personal names are found in different forms in different languages. Most often, English has adopted these forms from Russian, and has adopted the Russian form; Misplaced Pages uses these forms; this is not Russophilia but English usage.

There are exceptions, such as Saint Petersburg, where English has adopted some other form; here again we follow English usage.

Where English usage is not clear, or not documentable, we generally adopt Russian usage, for consistency with the usual practice.

That preserves as much as possible of the content of the nationalist diatribe now disgracing this page, while preserving neutrality and consistency with wider practice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Project-Class Russia pages
• NA-importance Russia pages
• NA-importance Project-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment