Wikipedia talk:Romanization of Russian/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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 [me] Russian nationalist" was "very well". You don't see how "it is possible to defend [this page] 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 Wikipedia; 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)

I began with modest tweaks, expressing what most people seemed to think; Ezhiki reverted. I commented out and tagged; Ezhiki reverted. Never a new text; never an attempt at compromise. Ezhiki has proposed no novel text; his position has consistently been, "this must stay, even when I disagree with it; it descended from Mount Sinai and not a jot nor a tittle may be taken away." That is an abuse of process; if something is contested, it should not stay in pages that claim to express consensus. The only real evidence of consensus is that people are free to disagree and haven't; this page is missing the first part. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ezhiki; it's really not as bad as PMA makes it out to be.. mostly I think it's a misunderstanding caused by some poor wording choices. The guideline tag has already been removed, so it isn't even claiming consensus anymore.. so there's no need to rush. Mlm42 (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for summarizing exactly why I removed it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I've had quite enough of this. I will no longer comment on either Pmanderson's or my behavior outside of this ANI thread.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2011; 19:15 (UTC)

Й (й)

I re-inserted [1] Й (й) since BGN/PCGN differs, I added an example for the difference to make this fact more obvious. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Default redirect

Instruction creep

• Places: The variant produced using the default romanization must be a redirect to the main article.
• Persons: The default romanization variant must be a redirect to the main article.

Please delete or change. It can also be a DAB. No specific guideline needed, general rules have to be applied. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; that problem had not occurred to me. Is there argument against? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Reducing section Use conventional names

Could this section please be reduced and point to general guidelines? Then we are almost only left with actual Romanization of Russian and it that area except for the yo there seems to be wide consensus. So it should be easy to re-establish the page as guideline. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. We can then discuess yo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the numbered rules are for Places listed as "Clarification" and for People they are not, with People having extra "Clarification" attached to it. I joined the rules that apply to People and Places into one section, leaving the examples, so there is always one for People and one for Places. I think the main problem left is the WP:UE part. But I think Ezhiki already agreed that "dictionary" is not the best wording. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Two rules

• Selecting the most frequently used variant based on a search engine test is not acceptable.
• When in doubt, use the default romanization guidelines.

did only exist in the People section, I think if, then they should apply to People and Places. I will change this, since I think this was only a mistake. Please revert me if I am wrong. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The search engine test limitation should be removed altogether - it is acceptable in the rest of Wikipedia to search among english language reliable sources to see which spelling is most frequently used by those sources. The inclusion of the clause here seems to be the same as limiting "Common Usage" to only dictionaries or reference works rather than to all reliable sources.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think simple SET usage is problematic. With small majorities there may be different Romanization outcomes, with the effect that editors and readers never can predict under which name an entry is to be found. In listings it may look strange to have several Romanization systems mixed together. I would like to know what other encyclopedias do, are they mixing different Romanizations on a large scale or are they sticking mostly to one system. I would prefer sticking mostly to one system. So it would mean WP:RUS specifies the WP:SET how-to-guide, asking for 75% qualified majority or so. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 07:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree, we can redirect from less common romanisations, paper encyclopeadias cannot. If the majority is extremely slim, then we look at the quality of the sources but the SET remains as an aspect in weighing up commonality. As Pmanderson appears to imply above (with the Pidgin comment) Britannica follows sources in some cases and applies strict romanisation in others. For instance it's article on korolyov/korolev is strictly titled korolyov, yet discussing the city in other articles it follows sources on the subject in hand and uses the common name Korolev. As I discovered recently in an (all English) common naming discussion about a series of related articles - consensus on WP tends to be to name based on most recent common English usage rather than enforcing a consistent system of naming that doesn't represent current common usage of individual names. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:RUS' intent is not to tell editors how to spell something in a context; it is strictly to determine what spelling to use for the article's title (since there can only be one). How to link to that title from other articles is not in the scope of this guideline, nor should it be.

As for SET, WP:RUS warns against using a basic search test as the sole criterion for making a decision. Googling up one variant, then another, then comparing the number of raw hits with no regards to what the results include is not an acceptable approach. An approach outlined in WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name, on the other hand, is perfectly fine (although, as I commented above, it only works well for choosing between alternative names, not between alternative spellings of the same name). I would support re-wording the SET clause accordingly, but I would oppose its removal. Attempts to move articles around based solely on the raw ghits counts are, sadly, not uncommon.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 14:06 (UTC)

A red herring. No guidance on Wikipedia recommends following raw google hits; most of the sections to which this could be redirected expressly recommend against doing so. (Engines like Google Books, which can be set to sample published and copy-edited texts in English, are another question.) Therefore the simplest way to discourage appeal to www.google.com is to install the proposed redirect (for example, to WP:UE and WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name, both of which do), and perhaps to repeat the warning as summary text. Is there a non-figmentary reason to oppose? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How's this conclusion different from what I said???—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 17:36 (UTC)

The widely available and consensus judgment against using raw google alone is no argument against any of the fixes proposed in this section; none of them would endorse raw google. Is there an argument against, or shall we continue? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean; could you re-word your statement more clearly, please? I was not using "the consensus judgement against using raw google hits alone" as an argument to oppose "any of the fixes proposed in this section". What I said is that despite that consensus judgement, attempts to act based on using raw ghits alone are, unfortunately, not uncommon. Some can be found on this very page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 18:02 (UTC)

Some can be found on this very paqe. Where, pray? Do look closely, and do distinguish (as other guidelines do) between raw Google and more reliable search engines. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Did someone mention "ngrams"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 18:59 (UTC)

As Ezhiki would have seen if he'd looked, ngrams are based on Google Books: printed, usually copy-edited, off-line sources; one of the reasons we say "raw Google" is to differentiate such searches from www.google.com. If would be nice if this discussion had some contact with reality. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you have me convinced. Counting raw ghits without looking at the results is very much different from counting raw gbooks hits without looking at the results. Not at all the same. I stand corrected.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 19:32 (UTC)

Well, good. Now that Ezhiki is "convinced" (even though he continues to ignore the difference between two different search engines which have only a manufacturer) maybe he will present an objection with some merit or an altetnative text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but which part of my comments prompted you to conclude that I have an objection or am about to propose an alternative text? Mine was a clarifying remark pointing out that the wording might use some tweaking. Do you have a suggestion, perhaps? You did mention a possibility of replacing this part with a "summary text", which sounds fairly close to what I had in mind.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 20:53 (UTC)

I can't think why I would oppose its removal would suggest opposition to the proposal discussed, so I guess I'll just have to do a draft. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ezhiki, How is your conclusion any different from mine where I said: " If the majority is extremely slim, then we look at the quality of the sources but the SET remains as an aspect in weighing up commonality." WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name, sets the bar as anything less than a 10% majority and I'm quite happy to accept that in my defenition of "extemely slim". I also agree that only searches of reliable sources (News, Scholarly, Biblio) should be accepted and that those results should be filtered. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In that aspect, it is not different. I was merely implying that having a short reminder on the unacceptability of using raw google hits for deciding anything has practical value. How to best word that reminder is a different matter.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 18:02 (UTC)

Draft

Let's keep this simple. Replace the entire section on conventional names with:

See WP:COMMONNAME

Wikipedia generally uses titles which represent what the subject of the article is most commonly called in English reliable sources; several ways of determining what is most common for place names can be found at WP:NCGN#Widely accepted name and the following sections; similar methods apply to articles on people.

Search engine results should be treated with care, and hits on Internet searchers like raw Google (www.google.com) should be ignored unless they are overwhelming; the internet is neither reliable nor representative. For more, see WP:NCGN#Search engine issues.

I have not bothered to pipe the full names of the alphabet soup. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a point (Moscow vs. Moskba?) where all the noise and imperfections of www.google.com are drowned out by the signal; that's what this means by "overwhelming". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the wording of this guideline actually reflect consensus?

I'm closing this RfC, because there appears to be consensus that the romanization guidelines need to be reworded / changed, which is the only question this RfC was intended to answer. Hopefully the handful of editors who are engaged in the discussions continue to be make progress towards improved guidelines. Mlm42 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. 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)

• Support. This guideline works. Perhaps it should be made more specific, as Herostratus proposes, but I don't see any need for a major change. GreyHood ^Talk 22:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No major change is proposed in this poll, which is specifically about the word "dictionaries". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support, though I would also support the wording expanded to refer to English reliable sources, not just major English dictionaries. And why is it no longer considered a guideline? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  It is no longer considered a guideline by Pmanderson's unilateral decision ([2] and [3]). I've opened an ANI thread to that effect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 16, 2011; 15:46 (UTC)

  This guideline is Ezhiki's unsupported opinion, based on a "consensus" of four years ago, and undiscussed since. That's long enough ago to be {{historic}}. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  The question in this poll is whether we should use only dictionaries or English reliable sources. So B2C's opinion is fairly non-committal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:36, 16 June 2011 (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. Mlm42 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

• The text here that you're citing is a reflection of Wikipedia:Use English, and Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia?
— 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 Wikipedia's other Romanisation guidelines:

1. Armenian - "However, for transcriptions of proper names, apart from other Armenian text, it is Wikipedia'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 versions[...]They may be transliterated by a different system, or for another language[...]They may be simplified, more familiar-looking, or easier to pronounce for English-speakers[...]They 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia.

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 [knowledge] 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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." Wikipedia 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)

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)

I have finished, I think, copyediting to make this consistent. Again, why not replace yo with e in romanizations? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems with I and Y - Text vs Table vs Talk

I reduced the table to show only the differences from BGN/PCGN. By doing so I found some inconsistency. Text says

• -ый endings become -y;
• -ий endings in adjectives [bold by me] of Russian origin become -y.

Table does not say about adjectives.

Furthermore Talk:BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian#Simplified system refers to proper nouns. So what is wanted? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 09:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I would simply have -y as the default, as in Belinsky and Brodsky. It may be that being a loanword is a reason not to use the default. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Belinsky and Brodsky aren't exactly nouns, as Russian last names have an adjective form, so using "-y" is warranted. Endings of nouns are usually left as "-iy" (not that there would be terribly many of such nouns; "гений"/geniy is one example), and names of non-Russian origin usually retain "-iy" as well (example). The last one is important.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 13:01 (UTC)

That would be a reason to depart from any default; a stronger reason is that the place is called Ryrkaypiy in English, not Ryrkaypy. How is it spelled in Chukchi? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean the names of non-Russian origin. There are, as far as I can tell, only about a couple dozen such places (out of ~150,000 of all places in Russia), and neither is high-profile enough to have a common English name; they are simply romanized names. Ryrkaypiy is probably the most notable of them, which says something about the obscurity of the rest. There is also another dozen or so places which are nouns of Russian origin. The only nouns I can confidently say I've often seen romanized via "-y" and not "-iy" are the male names (such as Vasily or Dmitry); all other nouns, and especially toponyms which are nouns, tend to use "-iy" almost exclusively. How to describe all this in a guideline without too much creep and without sacrificing the accuracy I am not exactly sure. Considering that only a handful of obscure places is going to be affected, perhaps this doesn't deserve a mention at all.

As for Chukchi, I don't know how it's spelled. What does it matter?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2011; 21:46 (UTC)

It matters because it is entirely possible that the place is known in English in a spelling direct from the Chukchi, more than through Russian; but some Chukchi activist will have to pursue that, not me. But I agree that the proper course is not to mention so rare a case in mentioning what is default. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I'd say that chances of a place name being know in English primarily through Chukchi (or any other indigenous language of Russia) are just as slim as the chances of a place name being a noun ending in "-ий".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 23, 2011; 14:31 (UTC)

Problems with hard sign - Text vs Table

Text says : omitted, Table says : omitted when followed by a vowel. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In modern Russian, it's always followed by a vowel letter (я, ё, ю, и or е) but consonant sound (/j/). But there are words of non-Russian origin (see ru:Ъ#Русский язык) where hard sign appears in other places, even before consonants; this comes broadly away from normal Russian graphic, and I even can't say how should it be read (suppose also nohow, but maybe somewhere writer wants better /j/). It's better to use English transcription of original language, if possible, I think, so this case could be excepted from this manual. Ignatus (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:NCRUS

Shouldn't we go even further and call this thing "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia)", like so many others in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). At the end, this is not about Romanization, but about article title naming. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic).

The default Romanization can be deleted alltogether after being incorporated into the article Romanization of Russian. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Except that the "default Romanization" is unsourceable. While it is another not unreasonable convention, like any of the other conventions in that article, it is something we made up.

You are probably right on what the title should be; if there's any of this page left after your suggestions are implemented. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe at least the table showing the default Romanization can be reduced to the rows that are not identical with BGN/PCGN. I think I read somewhere that Ezhiki or someone else said, this default Romanization or simplified BGN/PCGN is not made up, but is wide spread use. It should be possible to document that in the article? Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 08:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to look at sources - preferably in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the page into WP:NCRUS and WP:ROMRUS

I think this page really needs to be split. There is one part dealing with a self-made romanization system and one part dealing with how to apply the general WP naming conventions.

The shortcut WP:RUS could be a disambiguator:

• WP:NCRUS - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia) - containing guidelines to how to determine the conventional name, mostly referring to WP wide general rules
• WP:ROMRUS - Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian - containing the rules for the WP-modified BGN/PCGN system for Russian, or WP Romanization of Russian, currently called "default Romanization", which is a very unspecific name.
• WP:RUSSIA - Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia

Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quite reasonable; my qualms are: The first will be really short, if we adopt your suggestion of making that material a summary section; the second sounds more like a section redirect. I'm waiting for a week's silence or third party comment until acting; but if you think this reasonable, do try a draft. (It might be easier if the draft began as two separate sections on the same page.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) has a section on Russian (which is basically empty).. this may be an appropriate location for a naming conventions section, if these are divided up as Bogdan suggests (which I wouldn't be against). Mlm42 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I made a first version of the split page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia), and added all guidelines important for article naming that I could find. I also imported the rules from WP:NCGN#Russia to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Russia)#Inhabited localities. I think it should be deleted from WP:NCGN#Russia, and a reference should be made to NCRUS similar to NC-Canada and NC-New Zealand, two NCs only referenced from NCGN. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

There are now several attempts to update these guidelines, and someone needs to declare how the issues are to be progressed through discussion. But I suggest your draft page should not retain the use of the word "dictionary" per the discussion above; my view is that general WP principles require that where there is a widely used English form, that should be used for the title. Widely used means mainstream media such as newspapers or travel guides, not scholarly publications which likely have their own romanization systems. If the word dictionary is interpreted to mean a reference book (Britannica, The Times World Atlas etc) we would effectively be inviting article creators to adopt another institution's romanization system. Secondly, please do not use the Togliatti example. It is an exceptional case being derived from a non Russian source. Better examples where there is a variety of commonly used spellings would be Kruschev (prefer Khrushchev) and Ekaterinburg (prefer Yekaterinburg) where in both cases the spelling closer to WP standard is chosen. Sussexonian (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Splitting is done. I think WP:ROMRUS can be activated as official policy for a WP specific Romanization method. WP:NCRUS needs more work. WP:ROMRUS is now only about one Romanization method for Russian, namely the WP method. When to use this method is covered by NCRUS, which is mostly a collection of general WP rules. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)