Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:31, 14 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)

  Yes, unfortunately Britannica has steadily conceded to the demands of non-anglophone nationalists like those which inflict themselves on Misplaced Pages. We have the power to ban them and should do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, that's one opinionated (and unsubstantiated) remark, if I've ever seen one! By all means do everything you can to convince others that Britannica is now a private Nazi nationalistic joint, but please don't act on this opinion unless you can demonstrate that the community agrees with this assessment of yours. Filing an RfC on WP:COMMONNAME would be a great first step. For now, however, let's work with what WP:COMMONNAME currently says, not with what you want it to say.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 17:12 (UTC)

• As for the usage of oryol as a transliteration of eagle: That is unlikely to be common enough to make a difference; if anything, it would provide false positives for oryol; so removing it would make "Orel" yet more common. For one thing, Google ngrams are case-sensitive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

  And you think it "unlikely" based on what, if I may be so curious (sorry, it must be maddening that I keep requesting evidence to back up the sweeping claims you keep making)? As it happens, "Oryol"/"Orel" is also a last name, and the false positives are just as likely for "oryol" as they are for "orel".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 17:12 (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)

No, it's your concern which is not a concern of the encyclopaedia - and if you were right and it's a valid concern specific to romanisation we should see it in all of Misplaced Pages's other Romanisation guidelines:

1. Armenian - "However, for transcriptions of proper names, apart from other Armenian text, it is Misplaced Pages's general convention to follow English usage, where it exists; this may frequently mean using -ian instead of the systematic -yan as a name ending." - Nope doesn't seem concerned enough to specifically check dictionaries.
2. Cyrillic (including Belarusian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Mongolian, Montenegrin, Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian.) - "If a name or word has a conventional English spelling, that is used...", "When something has a conventional name in English, use that name instead of transliterating. Conventionally-used names may stem from various sources:They may be anglicized versionsThey may be transliterated by a different system, or for another languageThey may be simplified, more familiar-looking, or easier to pronounce for English-speakersThey may be names borrowed into Russian from a third language" - no mention of conventional English names being found in dictionaries there either
3. Chinese - "In general, the titles of Chinese entries should be in Hanyu Pinyin (but without tone marks). Exceptions would include: When there is a more popularly used form in English (such as Yangtze River)" - nope no establishment of dictionaries or any other specific works to decide whether the English name is popularly used.
4. Greek - " If there is a common anglicization of a Greek proper name, it should be used in an English language context." - I see a trend forming here.
5. Hebrew - "Some topics may have several common widely-accepted English transliterations (e.g. the name Chaim vs. Haim vs. Hayim), and sometimes it is debated whether there is a standard English transliteration at all (Beersheba vs. Be'er Sheva). In these cases, the context of the article should be taken into account." - This is the closest to what you suggest for Russian, but still defers to contextual English sources rather a formulaic approach.
6. Mongolian - "When something has a conventional name in English, use that name instead of transliterating."
7. Ukranian - "It is subordinate to the naming conventions...", "Keep the readers in mind: they read English, but might not be familiar with Ukrainian. Ukrainian words should be used for a reason, not as a substitute for English.An object that has a conventional name in English should be named that way, instead of transliterating"

All of these defer upwards to Misplaced Pages's English methods of determining a Common or conventional name; WP:RUS stands alone in deciding that we should determine that common name through a very narrow set of parameters. Despite your claims to dislike the current wording, you proposed it and whilst it was accepted by consensus I'm not sure that any of those supporting consensus had the foresight at the time to see what effect it would have on all the articles you have renamed or enforced this guideline on. It is time the shortcomings are addressed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking these up, but the reasons behind why none of those guidelines defines "common usage" are rather simple. Some of the WikiProjects for the benefit of which these guidelines have been developed are very small and the activity there is low (such is the case with Armenia, Belarus, and Mongolia). There are more pressing concerns they need to address, and having a romanization guideline at all is pretty much just a stopgap measure (you may have noticed how poorly some of these guidelines are written). Once the activity there picks up, they are going to run into the same kind of issues we have with WP:COMMONNAME being too vague and not addressing important problems. Articles of WikiProject Ukraine are a good approximation of the horrors awaiting WP:RUSSIA—the articles on that country's administrative divisions are a complete mess because they all use different names on different occasions, so finding anything is very hard to the point of impossible.

Other languages, like Chinese, Greek, and perhaps Hebrew, don't have the same problems Russian has—for those languages either exists one romanization system which is used in the vast majority of cases (Chinese Pinyin is a good example), or, when there is more than one system, their use is clearly segregated by knowledge area. One can actually trust the search results under those conditions—your hits would include English name and romanization, and deciding which one is "more common" is a snap. For Russian, we have a dozen of different system, most of which are intended to cover everything and the kitchen sink (with scientific transliteration, which is aimed primarily at the linguists, being possibly the only exception). So, you are not choosing between a possible "common name" and romanization; you are choosing between a possible "common name" and half a dozen romanization variants, any of which can "win out" in the end (and be declared "common English name" as a result).

All in all, all those guidelines do not clarify the definition of "common name" not because there is no need, but because there is not enough sufficient activity to stop and think whether this is necessary, or because the generic guidelines work for them just fine. Heck, some WikiProjects (such as Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan) don't have any romanization guidelines at all (which, I should note, doesn't make the editors' jobs easy or the end result predictable to the readers). What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that there are problems which are specific not just to romanization in general, but to romanization of Russian in particular, which the generic guidelines do not address well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 18:45 (UTC)

Ezhiki, I'm still not understanding your basic argument. Your main concern seems to be in the case when there are multiple different spellings used in English-language sources, and no clear "winner". In those cases, I think some of the points in the guideline are good for choosing between the various English-language forms used.

The situation that I think the other editors are trying to debate is when there is a clear choice for a common English name among English language reliable sources. In this case, we should use that common English name, and not give unnecessary extra weight to dictionaries and other "reference works". Could you please make your case more clearly, if you are refuting this point? Mlm42 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, for any given place in Russia, there will always be multiple different spellings used in English-language sources (and that includes even such places as Moscow and St. Petersburg!), which is why that's the cause I'm arguing. The universe of those spellings will include the genuine common English names (which, when they exist, can easily be looked up in any major reference works), and a great number of different romanization variants. Now, the definition of romanization is the representation of a written word or spoken speech with the Roman (Latin) alphabet, or a system for doing so, where the original word or language uses a different writing system (or none). The purpose of romanization, as per, for example, this, is establishing standardized Roman-script spellings of those foreign geographical names that are written in non-Roman scripts or in Roman alphabets that contain special letters. The definition makes it pretty obvious that romanization is supposed to be employed to establish a standardized spelling for cases where no such standardized spelling exists, which, in turn, means that no "common English name" exists in the first place. However, if you apply the generic provisions of WP:COMMONNAME, there is no way to make a distinction between what is genuinely a common English name, and what is a "standardized spelling" developed for a particular environment or context, which is not necessarily compatible with the environment and context (or even purpose) of Misplaced Pages.

All in all, in general when a name is included in a major reference work of some sort, we can be pretty confident that's our "conventional name" (unless, of course, like PMAnderson you believe that so many of the reference works out there are conceding to nationalists' demands, are written in "pidgin English", and are often "illiterate"; let's not go there—WP:COMMONNAME makes it pretty clear that reference works are an acceptable and vital source). When a name is not included in a major reference work, WP:COMMONNAME (and, for place names, WP:NCGN) provides us with other ways to go about the problem, such as gbooks and gscholar analysis (not hit count!), analysis of academic literature in the area in question (i.e., not just any books which happen to mention the name in passing), or analysis of media usage. That works very well when you have to pick between two or several names each of which can honestly contend for the "conventional name" title, but it doesn't work at all when you have to pick between one (or, possibly, zero—there's no way to know beforehand) truly "conventional name" and a bunch of "standardized spellings" used for purposes, most of which are unlikely to meet the organizational needs of an encyclopedia. The results will be truly random, and, as a consequence, truly random will be the locations of the affected articles in Misplaced Pages. That doesn't help our readers any, don't you think?

Was I able to clarify my position for you?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 19:33 (UTC)

P.S. The most succinct way of putting it I can think of is this. WP:COMMONNAME exists to help us choose the most common name. WP:RUS exists to help us choose the most common spelling of a name. In other words, WP:COMMONNAME's intent is to help resolve situations similar to Gdańsk/Danzig or Nagorno-Karabakh/Dağlıq; WP:RUS' intent is to help us pick the spelling once we figure out what name to use. Not many places in Russia have alternative names to choose from, but all have alternative spellings to choose from.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 20:01 (UTC)

No, I think we're still talking about different things. You are drawing a confusing distinction between the words "name" and "spelling", that I don't fully understand. You said there will always be different English spellings, and appear to be inferring that therefore, we won't be able to choose a common English name without resorting to dictionaries or reference works? Consider the following scenarios: Say usage is split among English reliable sources 40% and 60% between two spellings. Then that's not really enough to declare a common name. On the other hand, if the difference were 10% and 90% between two spellings, then that's a significant difference. As I understand it, the site-wide policy states we should go with the 90% variant, as it is the common name (even if we can't find a "reference work" that agrees). You appear to be claiming that, even in this 10%-90% situation, we should follow the reference works, and disregard the site-wide policy. And you still haven't made a convincing argument as to why. Mlm42 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Let me illustrate. The "name" problem would, for example, be deciding whether to place an article about the town under Baltiysk (Russian) or "Pillau" (German)—the place used to be a part of Germany, see. WP:COMMONNAME takes care of that pretty unambiguously, so we have the articles on all places in Kaliningrad Oblast under their Russian-based names. The "spelling" problem, on the other hand, would be deciding how to spell "Baltiysk"; i.e., to help us choose between "Baltijsk", "Baltiĭsk", "Baltiisk", and who knows what else. Now, some of these spellings are pretty esoteric; however, dictionaries and other reference works tend to stick with more common ones, with general audience in mind, not with the specialists. Since the purpose of the dictionaries and the reference works is very much similar to the purposes of Misplaced Pages, and since the general reference works is the kind of source the general audience is most exposed to,it makes sense to borrow from there. Other sources (such as those found via gbooks/gscholar/media analysis) would use the spellings which are appropriate in a context which is not necessarily amenable to the purposes of building an encyclopedia; and, as I previously explained, on top of that there is a randomness factor which can affect the end result in unpredictable ways. Is this explanation better?

As for the 10:90 cases you are thinking, I'll bet the shirt I'm wearing that 99.9% of those are caused by use/non-use of the letter "ё" (I recommend you read the article; it's quite interesting even if you aren't into linguistics). I most certainly can't think of a ё-less example that would possible have 90% of sources spelling the name one way with the majority of reference works spelling it differently (and I have a database to query stuff like this up). That, however, is a problem that's worth being addressed separately on its own merits. If we get rid of the requirement to romanize "ё" as "yo" and simplify it as "e", that'll most certainly make the editors' (and my) job easier, even though the quality and accuracy would be somewhat sacrificed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 20:49 (UTC)

Okay, but the point is that in other areas of Misplaced Pages there is the same problem, and one could argue that when there is a dispute over a name, that more weight should be given to things like dictionaries and reference works. Indeed this has been argued in the past, and has been rejected by the wider community. This is why Septentrionalis is up in arms about it, because it appears you are blantantly flouting the established consensus. On the other hand, ultimately, the common English name among reliable sources (if it exists) is almost always going to be the common English name among reference works (if it exists), so I don't understand why you are digging your heals in here.

As for the "yo" thing, Septentrionalis brought this up below, and it might be the source of most of the problems. I've suggested a solution in that section. Mlm42 (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think policies such as Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names) make a distinction between "name" and "spelling", in the same way you are. Mlm42 (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That's probably a failure of copyediting. We have been attempting to make clear that our article titles don't habe to be names since WP:Article titles was moved, more than a year ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 12 June 2011 (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)

Is this supposed to be good faith? "Names of places located in Russia must be romanized from Russian" is "never use English" unless it happens to be the romanization of Russian (or perhaps unless it falls into some other exception). But this never allows for the possibility that English has adopted the German or Polish or Yakut spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree the wording of this point isn't good, but I think it could be reworded to be helpful. I think the point is that some places in Russia may have local languages that aren't Russian, so one might be tempted to romanize the name from the local language instead of from Russian. So this point is saying that if we are going to romanize the name (i.e. it doesn't have a common English name), then we should romanize from Russian and not from some other language. Makes sense? Mlm42 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You have the nub of sense that was behind this; but that's not what the text says.

Even so, this should be a rule of thumb, rather than never or always. Most names will be romanized from Russian, because anglophones encountered them through Russian; but suppose that most names in the Outer Foolander Autonomous Republic represent the Fooland variant; shouldn't the stubs on the small villages do so too? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 11 June 2011 (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)

I think the spirit of this convention is as follows: "If there are multiple English forms which are commonly used, without one which is significantly more common than the others, then it's best to choose the one closest to the default romanization guidelines." Which makes sense to me. Mlm42 (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2011 (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)

How is asking to keep the wording of a guideline in the state it was adopted in 2007 while the discussion is ongoing on the talk page the same as "treating it as a private essay"? What gives you the right to dismiss the results of a previous formal process, ignore another formal process which is ongoing, and decide that OK, we are done here, it's an essay, everyone go home now? And I would very much appreciate it if you stopped with the "nationalistic" quips. Since I'm the only non-Anglophone here, it's becoming difficult not to take them personally. Are you calling me a nationalist? If not, then who are you calling a nationalist?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 17:12 (UTC)

How about not revert-warring to the unspeakable? Either discuss what other people want, or acknowledge that this is your private project. At present this page says: "7.Names of places located in Russia must be romanized from Russian"; please explain how this differs, if at all, from "always use Russian"; and how it is possible to defend it without being a Russian nationalist. We are required to assume good faith, not ignore all the evidence on the question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please stop calling Ezhiki a Russian nationalist? It seems unnecessary. His position is easy to explain: the guideline was excepted unanimously in the current wording. I think the tricky point here is that maybe in 2007 people didn't realize that the wording isn't actually consistent with other site wide policies (possibly because they didn't interpret the wording in the same way Ezhiki did). Mlm42 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well; I do distinguish between defending the wording and dilatory attempts to preserve it on the sole grounds that it was the consensus of some small group way back when. Both are objectionable, but on different grounds. But my question stands: is there an argument that this can be consistent with policy? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It'd also be helpful if you realized that invoking AGF and calling someone a "nationalist" in their face in the same sentence is kind of contradictory and is hardly indicative of your own neutrality. Although, I admit, it is a breath of fresh air to be called a "Russian nationalist" for a change—normally people who find it necessary to insult me resort to terms like "traitor of the motherland", "a clerk from Washington Obkom", or, when they are feeling generous, a "cosmopolitan".

On a different note, could you please explain how a dozen people universally supporting a proposal in 2007 constitute "a consensus of some small group", yet a group half that size in 2011 (which has not yet arrived to any formal consensus) is suddenly the ultimate authority? Wouldn't that be objectionable on the same grounds? By all means, let's discuss the issues this group has identified, but so far I'm not seeing so much a discussion as Pmanderson's attempts to serve as the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, and the executioner all in one. Not very conducive to the discussion, I must say.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 16:11 (UTC)

Actually, Pmanderson is correct that, for the moment, there is only a single editor who supports the guideline, with respect to the RfC. This in itself indicates that maybe the 2007 consensus wasn't as air-tight as one may think, and that the points should be revisited, each on their own merit. And more of an effort should be made to ensure this guideline is consistent with policy. Mlm42 (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't mean we should dispense with the proper process, though. At any given time, any person can find a number of guidelines passed only by a handful of people several years ago. Efforts to consolidate our policies and guidelines need to be made, but not the way Pmanderson is going about it. Identifying a problem and putting it up for discussion (as you did with this RfC) is one thing and perfectly acceptable; identifying a problem, unilaterally acting on it, and ignoring other opinions while insulting those who hold them is quite another.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 16:43 (UTC)

Substantive disagreements

If these can be straightened out to the satisfaction of any editor other than Ezhiki, we can consider whether the result is consensus.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Why can't they be straightened out to my satisfaction as well???—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 15:53 (UTC)

You are welcome to suggest alternatives. You have not done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dictionaries

• We do not determine usage merely by consulting gazeteers or dictionaries. This is the only page which suggests any such process. Why should we not immediately change all of this? Does anybody, even Ezhiki, actively defend it? I don't see anybody. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Because things are supposed to be changed after the discussion is over and the consensus is reached, and not while it's still ongoing? As for me defending it, it is, as I demonstrated in the sections above, other ways of determining a conventional name do not work well for the romanization of Russian due to the practical peculiarities of the said romanization. There are specific problems that need to be addressed, and the generic approach is not only not addressing them, it randomizes the outcome, making our readers suffer as a result.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 15:53 (UTC)
    • Every bunch of POV pushers in Misplaced Pages has the same cry for the pages they abuse; that is no excuse. The authors of this should have been banned; it may not stand.
    • You have demonstrated nothing of the kind; what you have given evidence for is that English is inconsistent in dealing with Russian names; so it is with every language on the planet - not least English.
    • And none of this addresses whether this page should appeal only to dictionaries. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
      • English being inconsistent in dealing with other languages is precisely why we have so many guidelines dealing with the names, not least foreign names. This guideline is no different from any other—it identifies a problem and suggests a solution. The solution is not going to be the same as in other guidelines because the very problem is very different.
        • the very problem is very different So Ezhiki keeps saying; but he has given no examples where it is actually different from Greek or Hebrew. (Chinese, with its syllabic characters, does differ somewhat.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
          • For Greek, a well-established traditional way exists to represent the names in English. For Russian, no such way exists. Greek does not have a dozen romanization systems which can be expected to be encountered fairly evenly, often regardless of context. Russian does. I can't comment on Hebrew because I am completely unfamiliar with the problems the romanization of that language faces and am thus perfectly happy to defer to the opinion of the people knowledgeable about that subject. Ukrainian shares pretty much the same problems Russian does, and if you spend any time around the articles in the WP:UKRAINE domain, you'll see what a horrible mess they generally are. Lack of proper and effective guidelines is a big part of the reason (it's hard to put things in order when there is no guidance as to how).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 21:53 (UTC)
            • • No, there are at least four or five traditional ways of transliterating Greek; if one counts hybrid systems, there are over a dozen. One is oldest and we (mostly) abide by it, except for our Byzantinists; but everything from Aeschylus to Aiskhulos is encountered fairly evenly in the literature. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • • As for the dictionaries, I've noted more than once now that it was both the original intent and is my preference to recommend using reference works, not just dictionaries, for this purpose. While the WP:NCGN provisions are fine for choosing between two or more vastly different names, they aren't very effective when what you are dealing with is basically a bunch of different spellings of the same name. One of the reasons why dictionaries and reference works exist is to give advice on what spelling to use. WP:RUS also recognizes that the reference works won't always agree, which is why the "default romanization" mechanism is provided as a backup. Does this answer your question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:11 (UTC)
        • No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Care to elaborate why?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 21:53 (UTC)
            • Because it doesn't, any of it, address what I actually asked; except to concede that this should have been works of general reference to begin with, and the RfC was unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Togliatti

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.

• Unacceptable; it makes no allowance for the possibility that Togliatti is simply the more common English spelling. See the governing policy; doubly unacceptable since elementary searches in printed material strongly suggest that Togliatti is three times as common, as the name of the city, as Tolyatti. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Togliatti indeed seems much more common, and even used on the city administration official website. Hellerick (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Togliatti" seems to be (and actually is) much more common because it refers to both the city and the person, whereas "Tolyatti" refers only to the city. Even sources referring to the city as "Tolyatti" may mention that it is named after "Palmiro Togliatti", which skews the results even further. Not to mention the searches above aren't indicative of "much more common" (300 results vs. 100? Come on.). Even if you dismiss WP:RUS entirely, Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)#Divided usage covers this situation perfectly, especially when a proper analysis of the search results is done (as opposed to using raw hit counts).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 15:53 (UTC)

If Ezhiki had clicked on the links above, you will see that the seach phrases are "Togliatti Russia" against "Tolyatti Russia". It would require intricate and unusual syntax to include references to the politician, and I see none in the first pages of hits. There will be some false positives; but where is the evidence that there are enough to matter? (If one makes the search "in Togliatti, Russia", there are no false positives whatever, and the ratio is still 8:1) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I did click on those links, and I am not convinced. Any reference work worth its salt would mention the politician when discussing the city, and wouldn't necessarily use the same spelling. The "in Tolyatti, Russia" vs. "in Togliatti, Russia" with its 8:1 ratio sounds like a wonderful counterargument, until you look at the actual raw numbers, which are 35 hits vs. 4. Might as well search for "from Tolyatti, Russia" vs. "from Togliatti, Russia". The ratio there is 1:1.

In all, its not our job to tweak these searches until we see what we like. Its the job of the publishers who produce dictionaries and other reference works, which, as WP:RUS recommends, is what we are supposed to borrow from.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:30 (UTC)

I agree with PMAnderson here, that I think this is one of the cases where there is a "widely accepted English name", per WP:NCGN, and that name is Togliatti. The Mayor of the city, Togliatti State University, Togliatti Academy of Management, all refer to themselves and the city as "Togliatti" in English.. so I'd even say that Togliatti is its "official name" per the first point in WP:NCGN#General guidelines.

If what the locals used had any effect on our practices, we would have moved Kiev to "Kyiv" long ago. I will also repeat that no Russian city has an "official name" in English, and even if it did, the English Misplaced Pages guidelines can't be affected by such a declaration.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 18:59 (UTC)

There was a survey done during a move request last year (at Talk:Tolyatti), where various news organizations were shown to use "Togliatti", to which Ezhiki responded in detail. In the end two editors were in support of the move, and Ezhiki opposed.. so it didn't end up getting moved.

Of course the longer we leave the title of the article as "Tolyatti", the more influence this decision will have on English language sources.. good old wikiality. Mlm42 (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, when I do a google news search (allowing for old news as well), I get 379 hits for "Togliatti, Russia" (in quotes), vs. 37 results for "Tolyatti, Russia".. pretty much any way you cut the google results, Togliatti convincingly wins. Mlm42 (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I take exception to a "convincing" win with a sample so laughably small (same problem as with PMA's results). Also, I can't replicate your result—I get even fewer hits than what you've indicated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 18:59 (UTC)

By "win" here, I just mean there are more hits than that for "Tolyatti, Russia" in every search I've tried. I'm concerned that 1) this place has a widely accepted English name, 2) we're not using it because of WP:RUS, and most worryingly 3) this will cause more sources (English and otherwise) to use "Tolyatti". Remember that these google search results will be skewed towards the Misplaced Pages usage due to the mirror sites, etc. I don't understand the page's move log, but it appears to have been called "Tolyatti" since its inception in 2004, with the exception of a few people trying to move it to "Togliatti" (both of whom were reverted by Ezhiki). Mlm42 (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there just isn't a "widely accepted English name", is all. There are variants which are equally acceptable, even though one may be somewhat more common than the other (in no small part because the search results are affected by Mr. Palmiro and other non-city entities). Reference works all list both variants, albeit in different order: Merriam-Webster Geographical has it under "Tol'yatti"; Houghton Mifflin—under "Togliatti (also Tolyatti)", Merriam-Webster Collegiate under "Tolyatti or Togliatti or formerly Stavropol", Britannica and Columbia—under "Tolyatti", Encyclopedia Americana—under "Tolyatti", and so on and so forth. So, no, WP:RUS is not the only reason why we are not using "Togliatti"; the "divided usage" clause of WP:UE also plays into the big picture.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 20:38 (UTC)

Yo

This Cyrillic letter (if it is a separate letter, a verbal question) is the root of the problem with dictionaries. It is pronounced quite like English "yo", but is most often Romanized as e, as in Gorbachev. Anglophones, who do not expect their spelling to be phonetic, are generally able to deal with this, but should be warned; it would seem to be the rational course to use e for Romanization, yo for transliterations, which serve as pronunciation guides:

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (Russian: Михаил Сергеевич Горбачёв, romanized: Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov, IPA: ;

in an article called Mikhail Gorbachev, is about right. It seems the rational course for Oryol as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I note, following this through, that only one of the several transliteration systems listed here uses yo. We are not an agency of the Russian Government; we don't have to use their system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point.. indeed, why isn't the default romanization simply "ë", instead of "yo"? Our article titles are able to handle accents like this. Mlm42 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply "ë" is used in strict BGN/PCGN romanization. "Yo" is used in the simplified BGN/PCGN romanization, on which WP:RUS is built. It's for the same reasons why we omit the apostrophes signifying the soft sign—strict BGN/PCGN never does that, but hardly anyone else includes them (we are thinking about the readers, not about conformance to a guideline just for the sake of being accurate). It's one of the things some people felt strongly about ("why should we use 'ë' when 'yo' is more common and accurate?" "why should we use apostrophes when hardly anyone else uses them?"). I, for the record, was not one of those people, although over time the position started to make a lot of sense (those pesky readers and their expectations again).

On top of that, I should note that transliterations are not supposed to be used as pronunciation guides; it's what transcriptions are for. Romanization is essentially the same as transliteration, except for its narrower purpose (to establish a standard rendering of a written word), to which end transcription elements can be introduced in systems where doing so makes sense. I would expect from someone so involved in this discussion to at least understand this (quite important) difference between the three.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 15:53 (UTC)

I accept the terminology, and will adopt in any future draft on the subject. The present page does not use it, another strike against it. The rest of this ignores the actual practice of BGN, which is (in these terms) to provide a consistent - if inconvenient - transcription system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Yo" is used in the simplified BGN/PCGN romanization, on which WP:RUS is built. - The simplified BGN/PCGN? Where is this codified? Any sources? The article BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian does not mention the simplified BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I still don't get it.. "yo" doesn't seem like the most common transliteration of "ë".. is there evidence to back up this claim? I don't know much Russian, but Mikhail Gorbachev, Nikita Khrushchev, Sergei Korolev, Sergei Krikalev, and Alexei Kovalev all come to mind.. their articles all use "e" as the transliteration. So I think PMAnderson is right; "yo" may be more helpful as a pronunciation guide, but our guideline should reflect English usage.. and I'm not convinced "yo" is the best choice. I understand that "e" is misleading, but if it's how most sources romanize it, then shouldn't we be bound to follow them? Also, "ë" itself is another possibility. Mlm42 (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

To answer Bogdan's question, the simplified BGN/PCGN is not a formal system; it is a product of the 2007 consensus by editors who, during the discussions preceding the adoption of WP:RUS, did not feel that the strict BGN/PCGN system is going to do the job. I was not one of those editors, although I will readily admit they had a point. The "simplifications" were the observations of real-life usage, both indirect and direct.

To answer Mlm's questions, "ë" itself is a poor choice because its use is even rarer than that of "yo". If I remember correctly, "yo" was chosen over "e" because that's the convention that seems to be more commonly used by the dictionaries and encyclopedias (which is no surprise, because technically it is more correct). By the way, I should probably disclose my ever-lasting love for that particular letter (as my signature would attest), but at the same time I will readily admit that purposefully accounting for it is more trouble than it's worth. Currently, we only use "e" when the ё/е distinction is unclear (which is the case in a majority of such cases) but "yo" when the use of "ё" is easily demonstrated and documented. Whether that's the right approach can be a subject of a separate debate.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:42 (UTC)

Since this seems like a very special case, perhaps there should be a section of the guideline specifically about this letter. Mlm42 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be romanized from Russian

As the existing comment makes plain, most names of places in Russia are romanized from Russian; this is fine, and expected. But to apply it to places which are in fact romanized in English from some other language (which includes Saint Petersburg) is bad English, and often lack of neutrality, in one easy bundle. I have proposed an alternative, which will in fact agree in most cases, above; but this is unacceptable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Saint Petersburg" is not a romanization, it is (regardless of whether one uses a WP:RUS or a WP:COMMONNAME definition) a conventional English name. It may at some point have been derived from a transliteration of one sort or another, but on its own is no longer a transliteration, if only because it does not conform to any existing transliteration system. There are few other places the names of which come from languages other than Russian and when those non-Russian names are what the English language borrows on a scale worth noticing. All those places would fall under the "divided usage" clause of WP:UE, so the practical implication of this WP:RUS clause isn't really that far-reaching. It's here mostly as a convenience measure to prevent the situations Mlm42 used as an example above. Is the clause thus redundant? Perhaps. Is it "bad English and lack of neutrality in one easy bundle"? Hardly. It can easily be perceived as such by a person who is not intricately familiar with the Russian geography, but in practice it is just a convenience clause which is built on what's going on in real life.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 13, 2011; 15:53 (UTC)

If the text above were a convenience clause, it would not have said never. Of course "Saint Petersburg" is not a transcription; but that's a technicality, because German (excluding its particular characters0 does not need to be transcribed into English. But it is derived from the German spelling, not the Russian Sankt-Peterburg, the only point to hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It says "never" for the only reason—there are no such situations. The use of the word "never" is itself for convenience. "Saint Petersburg" is the name commonly used to refer to the city in English. With or without current conventionality clause of WP:RUS, you'd still end up with it first, rendering the "romanization" problem moot). It's only when you have to romanize the name (i.e., when there is no conventional name in the sense described by NCGN), then the romanization needs to be done from Russian. There just aren't any places in Russia where this does not hold in "in relation to the period in question" (per NCGN), with the "period in question" for the articles about the inhabited localities being "modern times" (defined as post-1993, as per NCGN).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 17:54 (UTC)

If there were no such situations, then the rule would be superfluous.

If you have anything constructive to suggest, instead of claiming forever that this piece of nationalism is both perfect and unchangeable, do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If insults are the only thing you have left to say, let's leave this piece hanging indeed. I'd think that since it is you who is challenging the clause, it would be a snap to show example where it doesn't hold. Superfluous it may be, but that doesn't make it less useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 20:25 (UTC)

I've already cited a major example. You have chosen to shut your eyes. You are operating in bad faith, and this page should be rewritten or detleted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More insults, eh? But who's counting...

As for the "major example", you mean St. Petersburg, right? I've already pointed out what's wrong with that example ("Saint Petersburg" is not a romanization, it is... a conventional English name); in return you said that of course "Saint Petersburg" is not a transcription..., which kind of makes it hard to understand your point because, again, you have mixed up two terms which mean different things. In all, this clause does not care where the conventional name has originated, because if a conventional name exists, we don't even get to this clause—the problem is being taken care of well before it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 20:45 (UTC)

In short, the claim now is that we need two paragraphs saying "all of Russia must be in Russian" to meet a case that will never arise? Be ashamed of yourself! Either they are redundant, or they are substantive; pick one. In the first case, they are unnecessary; in the second, undesirable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which part of "it's convenient" prompted you to conclude that "redundant" and "substantive" are the only choices? If you must, yes, it's redundant. It's a shortcut, is all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 21:24 (UTC)

No patt of "it's convenient"; although that patent falsehood (rules of convenience do not say must or never) does make discussion more difficult. I suggested an actual rule of convenience under #Place names above; but if the case will never arise, there's no need for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with default romanization

The table reads: –ий endings -> -iy or -y. Why is there an OR-directive? Random choice of romanization? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I had also wondered about this.. perhaps we should just choose one? Mlm42 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the same as yo or e above: English usage is -y, but -iy is the "scientific" transcription. Thus we should say

Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky (Russian: Виссарио́н Григо́рьевич Бели́нский);

and we should add Belinskiy, although some non-anglophone pedant has changed the rest of the article to Belinskii. Fortunately Joseph Brodsky is read enough in English to escape this nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an OR-directive because that's what some people felt strongly about before the 2007 proposal had been initiated, so it got added to the proposal ("-iy" is strict BGN/PCGN, while "-y" is a simplified approach). In reality, most of our articles use the "-y" ending, which, as PMA correctly noted, tends to be more common in the English language publications despite technically not being as accurate. I'd be all for sacking the "-iy" part and leaving just "-y". It's what we mostly do anyway.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 18:01 (UTC)

As Bogdan points out, it's better to just choose one.. so maybe we should stick with the more common -y ending. Mlm42 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Changes of wording are acceptable. Should yo be treated in the same manner? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this page salvagable?

Will Ezhiki permit any rewriting of it, or will there be continual revert wars over any improvement in this obscure page? I will make an experiment by making an edit with which he has agreed; if this is reverted, it will be proof that this entire discussion is pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a different question—will you allow other people to discuss this page in peace, or are you going to continue with your campaign of insults, arrogant usurpation of authority (which you don't have), and the blatant assumptions of bad faith (such as your "experiment" you are about to try)?

In case you were wondering what my plans are, I am hoping to collect the specific suggestions for changing this page in a few days and formatting them as formal amendment proposals. People would then be able to !vote and comment on them. Then, whatever the outcome, the changes can be made. That, of course, leaves no room for your ridiculous assumptions that you have full rights to make any changes to a standing guideline any way you see fit. On the other hand, if the guideline is challenged again, we would be able to point out the "2011 consensus" which overrode the "2007 consensus", instead of sheepishly explaining that we have this Pmanderson guy who runs things around here, so you'd better take it up with him.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 20:52 (UTC)

This is more power gaming. Every editor can make changes to any page; they can be reverted by an editor who actively disagrees with them, provided he is willing to discuss his disagreements. Ezhiki has violated his precious procedure by reverting changes with which he does not disagree because his handful of friends didn't discuss the issue four years ago. I have already made specific proposals - and Ezhiki has ignored them.

Indeed, this proposal is only more delay; it will freeze objectionable rules in place during an interminable discussion. I will wait to see if these formulations ever happen; but they should not delay fixing this page where nobody defends it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh.. chest puffing aside, I think this page is salvageable. And it would be a lot easier if you two were a bit more civil to each other. Sigh. Mlm42 (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was salvageavble coming in; but the stonewalling since has made the question worth asking. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, so far I've been called a Russian nationalist, had my opinions, experience, and expertise flat out dismissed and ignored, had my requests to follow proper discussion process disregarded, seen PMA trying to usurp the ultimate power to make any decisions here (regardless of whether they are backed by at least one other person) and accused of "power gaming" and "stonewalling" at the same frigging time, allowed myself moderately acerbic remarks in return but overall ate it all up, and it's me who needs to be more civil? Got it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 21:38 (UTC)

As points of personal privilege: I called a text "Russian nationalist"; that Ezhiki has chosen to defend that text (on several different, incompatible, grounds) is his own business. Nor have I claimed the power to make all decisions here; I have claimed the right to be heard, to make proposals, and to be bold; it is Ezhiki who has reverted freely and with abandon, and has claimed the sole right to make proposals and to decide what happens with them. I will be back in two days to see what else he has done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You called a text "Russian nationalist" (something no one else has agreed with you on), yet your answer to Mlm's request to "stop calling Russian nationalist" was "very well". You don't see how "it is possible to defend without being a Russian nationalist"—a completely arbitrary premise—so I must be a nationalist to defend it? Having no other reasons is completely out of the question? You aren't even willing to consider that there may be another possibility? AGF-shmAGF? How's that not the same as calling me a nationalist, personally? You assumed that I can't be considered a "reputable editor" because I dare to defend the text you (and so far you alone) consider "nationalist". You have not explicitly claimed the power to make decisions here, yet you are the only one who can't wait for the discussion to finish before doing the changes. Some of those changes have no one else's support; others have some preliminary support but require further discussion, yet you usurp the power to implement them all the same. You see nothing wrong with marking a standing guideline an "essay" or "historic" while there is an open RfC on the merits of that guideline. You are being bold, but are completely ignoring the WP:BRD cycle. You are accusing me of reverting "freely and with abandon" of the changes which you added yourself just as freely and with the same abandon. Reverting is step 2 of the BRD cycle, why is your step 3 re-reverting? How's stopping with the reverts and engaging in a discussion denies you the right to be heard and make proposals? You aren't exactly being ignored on this page. What is the purpose of the pointy "experiment" you've just "tested"? Will you answer these questions here, or should I move this to ANI?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 22:11 (UTC)

• I agreed to slacken the tone of conversation, instead of contesting Mlm's description; arguing as to what I called you would have been yet another pointless and non-substantive discussion. I just made clear, I thought, that I meant the text and not you. It takes true gall to make this a complaint.
• You have not, to your credit, actually argued for the abominable text in question; so you have not therefore made clear how it is possible to defend it without being a Russian nationalist. You have instead claimed that it doesn't mean what it says, and will never arise. If so, on either count, its absence would be no loss.
• Step three is discussion. I have discussed; nothing I have edited and you have reverted stands.
• I am perfectly willing to discuss alternative wording; it is by a series of novel proposals that we may expect to find something mutually tolerable. Where are they? (I have seen "this must sray", lightly seasoned with "I don't agree with that, but it must stay anyway." Where is "how about the other," for once?
• At this point, the text of this page bears two changes from when I got here. One is the "experiment": to see whether Ezhiki will revert even changes with which he has agreed; the other is the objectionable text, which Ezhiki himself calls redundant.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Process

PMA, how do you expect people to be able to comment on a standing guideline when you keep changing stuff around? Two people have asked you about why you try to do this in such a haste; could you please answer that question?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 20:56 (UTC)

The same way they comment on any page whatsoever; by observing that it has changed in response to ongoing discussion, and so the issue in question may be moot. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Problem is, this is not an ongoing discussion about a minor issue. This is a standing guideline, and we are trying to pinpoint what needs fixing and hopefully agree on ways to accomplish it. Your continuous tweaks, "experiments", and overall hastiness (the reasons for which you still haven't explained) aren't making this any easier, and most certainly you have no right to make final decisions and pass them as final truth. I think as far as the answer to my question goes, I have all I need now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 21:39 (UTC)

This is a standing atrocity, contrary to policy and to usage, actiively harmful to the encyclopedia. You have revert-warred any change until compelled to abstain; you have insisted on a dated consensus, contrary to policy. I've seen that before: hitherto it has meant that some user thinks a page his private toy with which he rules some little empire inside Misplaced Pages; let's see how this differs. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You are entitled to think of it as an atrocity. However, I'm not seeing any other editor who classifies it as such. Mlm42 believes it could use some tweaking but is generally good, Stuart takes exception with the overly strict definition of reliable sources, and Herostratus objects that "dictionaries" definition is too narrow but can be fixed by replacing it with "reference works". I see no evidence whatsoever that there is a new consensus to mark this page as "historical atrocity" and dispose of it altogether, yet you not only insist this should be done immediately, you actively defend your right to make this final decision and impose it onto every participant of this RfC right this minute. Your opinion is one of many and deserves equal consideration; but it does not deserve priority handling, nor do you have any special rights to demand that your opinion is the only one correct and everyone else is "defending Russian nationalism". I don't know what problems you have with proper process, but your behavior and attitude are simply flabbergasting.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 14, 2011; 22:19 (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