Talk:Maladzyechna

Requested move: Maladzechna

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was none

Maładečna → Maladzechna – After the last four months of deadlock I would like to finally undue the original partisan move by User:Monkbel per the consensus agreed in the discussion with Yuri above. Kuban Cossack 13:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom --Kuban Cossack 13:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Belarusian name should be used. --Lysy^talk 14:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposed name "Maladzechna" does not follow the established convension for Belarusian geographic names. --KPbIC 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. At least it's in Belarusian, unlike Baranovichi (sic). Truthseeker 85.5 17:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. It should be moved to Maladzyechna, as per BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian. Yury Tarasievich 05:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The move itself is okay, however, I don't understand the choice of target -- per BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian it would be Maladzyechna. Yury Tarasievich 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote closed

I hereby close this vote as per WP:IAR because it is definetely clear that it won't fly. While ridding of Lacinka, thus bringing the article in accordance to WP:NC is a good idea, it should indeed by brought to WP:NC properly. A new survey is started below. --Irpen 06:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (current)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Maladzyechna. Joelito (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Maładečna → Maladzyechna –-Irpen 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support --Irpen 06:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Yury Tarasievich 06:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per standard romanization of Cyrillic, and much better established usage abakharev 10:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, at last a proper WP:RM procedure started. //Halibutt 10:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support To be honest, I don't really care to which one of the translit variants it gets moved to as long as the old, archaic and unsuitable lacinka version goes permanentely. --Kuban Cossack 12:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per discussion above, per Yury Tarasievich, the only Belarusian editor currently involved, and for the sake of consensus and consistency. --KPbIC 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support `'mikka (t) 04:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Lysy^talk 07:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Ok, I think we can happlily conclude this without waiting for 5 days and thereby end this painful and, possibly, last stage. I don't see the need to attract "foreigners" with no clue on the issue. Not that I mind their opinion but for them to understand the problem will take a lot of reading and we should try saving their time. As we have BE, PL, RU, UA users agreeing here, we should just request unprotection and move it. I will do that if no one objects.

As for Molodechno, if someone wants to make a case for that another move based on a common usage, that person would need to do the homework and produce the proof. I won't because I would not assume there is much statistics on this rather obscure for the rest of the world town to prove much English usage. However, this is a separate issue which possibly may not even come up.

So, please voice your objections to the move unrpotection request if there are any. --Irpen 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, if you don't like "foreigners" with no clue on the issue", then I think you significantly undervalue the conception of WP:V, which is one of the main conceptions of wikipedia, if not the main one.

And the most funny thing is that, in fact, you may be one of the foreigners with limited clue on the issue, as you don't know which name is the best for this article, and all you believe is that Latinca is the worst ([1])

Finally, the survey may be closed if there is a valid reason to judge that there is a consensus, not out of the worry that foreigners may come and "damage" the consensus. --KPbIC 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I see enough evidence for consensus. I am not afraid of "foreigners". I just see the issue is obvious and I don't want to waste their time in reading all this talk pages. I do not insist. Oh, and your accusations are tiresome and will not get responses as I warned you before. --Irpen 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

People are welcome to express their opinions, and people can decide by themselves on how to rationally "waste their time". There is no need to decide on someone's behalf. You were in rush to close the first survey. You opened a new survey, you voted, and now are rushing again to close this one too. Be generous, and be patient. --KPbIC 01:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what being or not being a foreigner has to do with issue, anyway. The use of BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian in en:wiki is quite an obvious (and neutral!) solution. The WP is for the readers, after all (ideally :). Yury Tarasievich 06:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Maladzyechna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221215122/http://www.polishroots.org/slownik/molodeczno.htm to http://www.polishroots.org/slownik/molodeczno.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.history.actmol.by/ to http://www.history.actmol.by/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.geography.actmol.by/ to http://www.geography.actmol.by/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.transport.actmol.by/ to http://www.transport.actmol.by/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080801031854/http://www.news.actmol.by/ to http://www.news.actmol.by/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

---

Maladziečna → Maladzyechna – no existing letter č in English Maximiljan (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The main title header had been unilaterally moved on October 28, 2019 despite the longstanding consensus, existing since the above move request of September 2006, that the English transliteration should be Maladzyechna. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.