Talk:Radioelectronics and Communications Systems

Untitled

Dear admin, please don't delete this page on 2 reasons: 1. I'm author of page "ru:Известия высших учебных заведений. Радиоэлектроника" in Wikipedia; 2. I'm translating russian version into english

Auestion on start year

The lead states that the journal was started in 2007, but the list of editors-in-chief goes back much farther. What is correct? --Crusio (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

for this moment I don't remember this date exactly. Need check --Sergey Lee (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

• As the English version of this journal is basically a cover-to-cover translation of the Russian version, I do not think there is a need for two different articles. The article on the Russian version should be redirected here and any useful information from that article should be merged here. --Crusio (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

genetally I agree with you, but: 1. the English version is appeared not in the same time as Russian; 2. A lot info about Russian version is not interesting for English readers and vice-versa 3. The distributors of versions are different. 4. The imprint info is different. --Sergey Lee (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some sort of merge is justified here, but I believe the origin and the target articles should be interchanged and that the article about the translated version should be merged to the main article about the Russian version. The translated version derives its notability entirely from the Russian/Ukainian version and does not publish any new content of its own. The facts that translated articles appear in print later than the Russian originals and that the imprint info is different are unremarkable technicalities. The same is true about translations of books, yet we do not have separate articles about translations of books and the main article about a given book is always about the book in its original language, with translations being mentioned, if appropriate. I don't see a good reason to depart from the same practice here. Nsk92 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, according to WP:MOS, article titles should be in English where possible. --Crusio (talk) 14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but WP:MOS concerns stylistic matters, and here we are talking about the substantive issue of underlying notability, which is certainly more important than issues of style. Nsk92 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For WP:MOS purists, the title could be given as Proceedings of institutions of higher education. Radioelectronics followed in the lead sentence by the transliterated version of the name as well as the name in Russian alphabet in parentheses. But the translated journal itself is strictly derivative. It does not accept or considers any independent submissions of papers (the papers can only be submitted to the Russian journal). Nor does it have an independent editorial board as such. Nobody gets appointed to the editorial board of the translated version, which simply copies whatever the editorial board of the Russian version happens to be at any given time. The editorial board gets appointed by and is accountable to the publishers of the Russian journal, while the publisher of the translated version has no control or input in this process. So in every substantive sense the Russian/Ukrainian journal is the primary substantive entity here. Translated Russian journals are still fairly common in math. Mathematical Reviews always sends out the Russian version of a paper for reviewing (I have reviewed quite a few of those myself); when they publish a review of the paper in such a case, they publish a single review (not two different ones), and they list the Russian publication data first, followed by the publication data for the translated version. As far as I know, this represents the best industry practice for dealing with such matters. Plus the WP:NOTINHERITED principle also applies here. Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, WP:NAME and WP:ENG (which are by the way, only guidelines) also have limitations and exceptions. There are many cases when a non-translated name constitutes predominant use in English sources, and the name of a WP article is not translated in such cases. For examples, the Russian newspapers Pravda and Izvestia are always referred to in English sources using transliterations rather than translations of their names. I don't think anyone would seriously advocate changing the titles of the WP articles about these newspapers to Truth (newspaper) and Reports (newspaper). I think the situation with Russian scientific journals is often similar. Nsk92 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• But I think it would be different if Pravda had an English version named Truth... --Crusio (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in this case the name of the translated journal is very different from translating the name of the Russian version of the journal. Incidentally, a more careful reading of WP:ENG shows that it does not say to always translate the name of the subject in English; rather it says to use the prevailing version of the name as used in English language sources. Anyway, I consider WP:MOS considerations here to be by far subordinate to the issue of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I really have no strong feelings about which version to merge to, so this will be my final remark about this issue: In principle, I think there is no issue of notability, because I don't see this as two different journals. There is just one journal, which appears in Russian and then gets translated into English (so of course editorial board and everything else is identical and not independent). As there will no be too many English language sources, we can probably argue it either way, but given that there is just one journal, I would argue that it has a Russian and an English title, even though the latter is not an exact translation of the former. --Crusio (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I do have strong feelings about the matter, both for this journal and in terms of setting precedents. The real journal is the Russian one. That is where everything of substance happens: the editors are appointed, papers are submitted and accepted, etc. Moreover, the English translation started only in 1967 while the Russian version was launched in 1958. The translated version is entirely dependent on the Russian one. It may well happen that the translation version will stop being published while the Russian original will continue; the opposite is not possible. The translation version is, technically, a separate entity: it is published by a different publisher and, as noted above, it has somewhat different imprint info, and with a substantially different title. But all it does is translate articles from Russian to English and publish these translations. As a matter of principle, and in view of WP:NOTINHERITED, it would be quite wrong to consider the article about the translated version as the main article for the journal. Also, In terms of practicalities involved, it seems to me that Izvestiya Vysshikh Uchebnykh Zavedenii. Radioelektronika already contains most (and more) of the relevant info about both versions and it is easier to merge the current article there than the other way around. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I Concur. Abductive (reasoning) 00:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

and I. But the articles need to be written in such a way that those who know only the English titles would recognize them. (There is also a problem of the extremely expansive full form of many Russian titles, including the name of the institution publishing them and whom the institution was named after--I think sometimes a somewhat truncated form could be used as the article title, in the same manner as we generally omit subtitles from articles about books. There is going to be one exception: there are a few cases where the english translation included selected papers from several different e Russian titles. And, attention needs to be paid for the cases where not all the articles were translated, as was quite usual--the editors of many of the translations did some degree of selection. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree. In a merged article I would want to see the name of the translated version of the journal mentioned in the lede paragraph, perhaps in the second (or even the first) sentence, in bold font. I agree that the longish form of the Russian name of a journal may be an issue, but in this particular case I think the Russian name is not excessively long. Probably common abbreviations could be mentioned, plus, of course, some redirects created for plausible search terms and spelling variations. My impression is that in this case the translated version translates the Russian original cover-to-cover rather than selectively. Nsk92 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging process is finished--Sergey Lee (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)