Content deleted Content added
Line 1:
==
Hey Kuban kazak. The use of ''[[Kharkiv]]'' vs. ''Kharkov'' has been discussed at length and the current form is the result of the consensus several editors. Please consult [[talk:Kharkiv]] and its archive, and discuss there if you want to propose such a change. Cheers, ''[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-10-15 23:17 Z</small>''
==Moscow Metro==
Hi there, kazak! I noticed that you put the apostrophes back in the names of some of the Moscow Metro stations. Just wanted to let you know that English Wikipedia traditionally utilizes Russian transliteration guidelines outlined [[Transliteration of Russian into English|here]]. While it is generally understood that there is no single transliteration system used by everyone, it had been decided that the usage of one system greatly helps maintain the consistency of the articles. At this time, most articles dealing with Russia-related topics use that transliteration system (which omits apostrophes used for soft and hard signs). You may also want to check out [[Portal:Russia/New article announcements|this announcement board]] (just do an in-page search for "metro" to find relevant announcements) for more information specifically regarding the naming of Moscow Metro stations. By all means do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Best,—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
==Welcome==
Just to say Welcome! I'm glad we now have a Cossack on Wikipedia :) [[User:Nikola Smolenski|Nikola]] 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
==Transliteration==
The point of transliteration is to enable English speakers to be able to pronounce these Russian names in the correct fashion. The reason Y is used to represent Ы, Й, -ий, -ый is that it is the closest English letter to those sounds. I understand your objection to using the "ai" sound to represent all these letters, which would be incorrect, but you have to understand that most of the time Y is not pronounced "ai" in English. It can also be pronounced "i" as in "system" and "ee" as in "fiery," not to mention the Y consonant sound.
A native English speaker will pronounce "Leninsky Prospekt" and "Leninskiy Prospekt" the same, and he or she would never say "LeninskAI Prospekt." Using "iy" as opposed to "y" does not change the way the word is pronounced, and "iy" is an unfamiliar letter combination in English that readers may not know how to pronounce.
Using a J to represent the consonant Y sound is even more ridiculous. J ''never'' makes a Y sound in English. An English reader confronted with a word like "Oktjabrskaja" will have no idea how to pronounce it, and if they attempt to say it they will almost certainly be wrong. The spelling "Oktyabrskaya," which correctly uses the letter Y to represent the Y consonant sound, will be pronounced correctly by an English speaker.
As to your other objections, in English "north-south" does not imply that the street (or avenue) runs from the north TO the south, it just means the street's alignment is along the north-south axis as opposed to the east-west axis. Removing Profsoyuznaya from the list was an accident. Regarding your request for British spelling, by Wikipedia convention either spelling is appropriate.
I appreciate your work on the rolling stock, extensions, and correction to the plans of Park Pobedy and Izmaylovsky Park. I did not realize that they were done by you because you were listed as an IP address.
[[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 13:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still don't understand the advantage of using -iy instead of -y, but if that's what you want to use I'm fine with it. I'm glad you figured out how to move the pages without creating duplicate articles. [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:Pardon me for intervening, but I would like to note that Wikipedia transliteration system is not a matter of someone's personal preference. Using "ja" is definitily not incorrect, but "ya" is also by no means not incorrect—these are merely conventions of two different transliteration systems (which, I repeat, are both "correct", but used for different purposes). The WP transliteration system was devised to maintain consistency—any other system could have certainly been used with the same effect (be it ISO-9, straight BCGN/PGN, or Russian GOST). [[Transliteration of Russian into English|Current system]] has been selected as the best for transliterating Russian into '''English'''; it is not merely a generic system, but one that targets the needs of English-speaking readers and is, as such, more common in English media/texts. I would recommend that you adjust your transliteration habits when dealing with the English WP articles. Using just one system benefits English WP greatly, and, since the tradition is pretty much set, I suggest you accept it. Just imagine that suddenly your system is adopted just as widely as the current one is—how would you deal with someone who comes in in half a year and insists that ISO-9 is the only way to go? Hope for your understanding, and keep up your otherwise great work. Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions or comments. Cheers,—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 01:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
==
Hi, Kuban Kazak, and welcome again. I just thought I stop by and request that you use some extra caution in UA-RU controvercial issues. It is easy to make others lose their temper and extra care is warranted. Since you seem interested in religeous affairs of Ukraine, you may take a look at [[Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko)]] article and click on the links. Hopefully, you will help to improve Ukrainian topics and avoid the edit wars. Thanks, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 16:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry about that, got carried away... anyway thanks for watering down the version, I suppose that that is any wikipedia's responsibility...I also wish for your help on the Kiev Metro section (photographs, we need photographs there). Actually I want to make a portal about all the metro systems of the former Ussr and hope for your help. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your work on expansion of [[Kiev Metro]] coverage. Cheers, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
==Russian portal==
Dear colleague, it would have been nice of you to announce newly created articles [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Russia/New_article_announcements|here]]. Thanks. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:And also [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Ukraine/New_article_announcements|here]]. I will try to help with what I can with metro. BTW, IMO we should probably use modern Ukrainian names for most, if not all, stations/lines in [[Kiev Metro]]. Thanks for your interest. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 20:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
==St. Volodymyr's==
See [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral]]. Feel free to comment. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
: Oh I commeted alright, one thing is to argue a POV, another thing is to descredit a POV and delete whole sections, Варварство причем варварство в самом прямом смысле.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 13:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
What a mess!!! I hope this would be soon put to an end. I haven't realized that you were writing to AndriyK at the same time as I was writing to him. I corrected the title of your section at his talk. I hope it is OK with you. Please send me your email address if you don't mind --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
:And sorry, I could not yet get to your Metro articles. You obviously see the reasons. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 22:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
::Опыт говорит что правокаторы приходят и уходят, а метро уже 70, 50, 45 лет в Мск, СПб и Киеве соответственно. Сейчас выметем мусор а потом делом займемся.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi, please do not get mad that I removed your entry from St Volodymyr's talk. Let's not get people crazy when we are approaching a difficult compromise there. I wholeheartedly share your desire for Ukraine to finally get a single canonical local Church which I would prefer to see [[autocephalous]]. I just thought the article you linked will start another barrage of flames. Cheers, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names]]==
Another thing, I think there is quiet a good discussion with an excellent proposal being hammered out by several users at [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names]]. The latest version is very close to what I would like to see as a Wikipedia policy and, if implemented, it would also help to quickly put an end to certain behaviours of certain users if you know what I mean. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
== Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia" ==
Please stop pushing Russian Orthodox POV to the articles. Please pay attention that ''canonicity''
*is viewed somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholic Churches;
*is not recognized by Protestant Churches;
*is not recognized by most of people in the wold that are not Cristian at all.
Please read [[WP:NPOV]] carefully.
::''NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.''
Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:The original article said something along the lines of "a church viewed uncannonical by the Orthodox Communion" i.e. Protestant, Catholics and other religions have nothing to do with this article. The church is NOT recognignised by other Orthodox Churches which happen to have cannonical standing. It is you who needs to pay attention and not omitt these facts, same NPOV argument my ''Drug'' [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Kuban kazak, I also got this message. I will respond shortly at AndriyK's talk. Please see [[Talk:Lviv Oblast]] re names. The issue isn't trivial. Also, please email me with your email address if you don't mind. --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry for interfering again, but let's not inflame our opponents in the edit summaries. I responded on the essence on their positions on the article's and AndriyK's talk pages. Cheers, --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 01:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
== ...вряд ли ==
Родом я из Москвы. У меня прадед, будучи казаком, воевал в первую войну. Другие предки у меня с Полтавщины - наверняка с Хмельницким были. А сам я не то что бы казак, а скорее потомок казацкий - хотя шашка и нагайка дома имеются.
<br>[[User:Kazak|Kazak]] 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
==Challenge==
Man, saw your challenge for AndriyK. Ahhh, I want it :)) Anyway, I see why you want him to do it, and I am not going to interfere, but if you have anything else that's equally interesting and not so recent (administrative divisions are a hobby of mine), let me know, OK?.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
:Try Belarus, from the same 1940s atlas. Or Russia, all of the historic regions, gubernia, different borders etc.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 11:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::Guberniyas, them I've been doing anyway (see [[History of the administrative division of Russia]]), albeit it's progressing much slower than I wanted. What I had in mind was a specific, well-defined challenge. I'll take a look at Belarus, though. Thanks!—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
==Request for help==
[[User:Molobo]] has been in habit of vandalizing articles on [[Smolensk War]], [[Russophobia]], [[Belovezhskaya Pushcha]], etc. Now she attacks [[Berlin Congress]]. Please help to neutrilize her. Thanks, [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 12:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
==Metro :(==
Hi, Kazak. To be completely honest, I'm a bit disappointed with your recent moves of metro articles, especially considering the fact that you were the one scolding someone else for making silly edits. I already explained the Russian transliteration system used in Wikipedia, and I also explained that neither that system, nor the one you are more fond of, is by itself incorrect. However, only one system should be used for consistency sake. I would suggest that you adopt one that's already widely used instead of moving articles back and forth. [[Transliteration of Russian into English]] happens to be the system that Wikipedia's policies [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Russian names|prescribe]], and, as you undoubtedly know, non-complying with the policies is not usually the best idea. I do not mean to be petty or waste our time, but I am a consistency hobgoblin, that's for sure, and I ''do'' see consistency as one of the virtues Wikipedia should pursue. Thank you for your attention and understanding, and I would appreciate if you undid the rest of your changes yourself.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, I would also recommend you a refresher on [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] and to remind you that American spelling should not be changed into British (and vice versa) except when both variants co-exist on one page or when British spelling is used in an article on an American-related topic (and vice versa). In all other cases, the variant of English used by the original contributor should be used.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
:If consistency is to be followed then you will find that british spelling is used on the main page, and the main page of the KRL was changed to my system and used since, what kind of consistency is this if one line will use one version and another one a different one. Me and Camerafield agreed to take off -ja and -ij in preference to -YA and -IY. So no point reverting my changes.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
::The point is not something you discussed with another user. The point is to follow policies. If you see British spelling in one line and American in another, by all means correct that (but make sure you correct it to one the original author used, not the one you like the most). As for translit, please always correct it to conform with what the policies tell you to. I realize it may be hard for you—I, for example, cannot stand British spelling, but if that's what the original author used, then I will change all American spelling back to British if I happen to edit the page (mind you, some people actually choose to hunt down pages with inconsistent spelling). Again, this is not just the matter of personal courtesy, it's the matter of following the policies. You would not break the three-revert rule just because you do not like it or think that it was invented by a bunch of morons who had nothing better to do with their time, would you? Same goes for transliteration and spelling. Trust me, people broke too many spears and wasted too much time over these seemingly petty issues in the past. Each policy is there for a reason. I once again ask you to ''please'' comply.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 03:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
May I add to that what's my own take on this. Being not a native speaker I never interfere with American/British spelling issue. I just leave those words as they are (unless I edit a piece) and leave it up to native speakers Wikipedians to bother about this. This is really such a minor issue for us, that there is no need to persist if it is such a major issue for others. As for the choice of the transliteration, especially in the article's names, I only move them when I know what version of the name is prevails in English. Like I moved the article about the Soviet rocket designer called until recently ''Korolev'' to ''Korolyov'' simply because the latter is used in English clearly wider. For subway stations, there is no way to get any meaningful statistics of the English usage. So, I suggest to propose the moves at talk first and wait for a while. It is really not a big deal, is it? --[[User:Irpen|Irpen]] 05:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== NPOV ==
... Whilst I might have patriotic POVs, I am against an article not repressinting the other side of the story. NPOV is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to. ... [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 13:30, 11 November 2005
''(This is copied from my talk page)''--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::Please find below some citations of your edits. Just to think once more about NPOV that "is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to."--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
::::''It seen the revival of Orthodox religion in 1988 when the millenium celebration of the baptism of Rus marked a turn in the Soviet policy of religion. However afterwards dark times came on it again. In 1992, after Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Filaret refused to resign, the cathedral became the first building to be captured by the UOC-KP. After the Karkov sinod and with the return of the new Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Vladimir, members of the neo-fascist UNA-UNSO barrikaded themselves inside the cathedral and refused entry to the new cannonical church leader and several thousand believers who gathered to meet them. Despite numerous protests from all the world Orthodox communities the cathedral is yet to return to the church and is still in the hands of the schismatics.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St_Volodymyr%27s_Cathedral&diff=26189124&oldid=25962321]
::::''After the pillage of Kiev by the Mongolian Tatarsin 1180 the cathedral fell into decline and was even taken up by the uniats ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Sophia_Cathedral_in_Kiev&diff=prev&oldid=26809258]
::Do you think your slighting attitude to other confessions is the way how the WP articles should be written?--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
:::I did not say that I was the perfect example, yet I did not mind people editing my posts so that it be presented in an NPOV way. On the contrary before you people showed up, me and Irpen discussed how to water down the first example. In the end the seizure was agreed upon.
:::What I do not understand is how my extensive contribution about Sophia is a breach of NPOV. Поясни.
[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 16:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
== Mediation concerning [[St Volodymyr's Cathedral]] ==
I propose to ask for official mediation to resolve the dispute concerning [[St Volodymyr's Cathedral]] article. Whould you agree?--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 18:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
:Not that I am against but then we pretty much have setteled everything there is to settle, I mean if it is something as petty as Kyiv vs Kiev then it is laughable at mediating that (considering the length this article travelled), but if that's how you want to end it, fine by me. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I've got an e-mail from the mediator. Please check your mailsbox so that we can start the dispute resolution.--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
== Balachka ==
I've never heard of [[Balachka]], until you mentioned it in some discussion recently. It sounds like an interesting article topic. Would you create a stub? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-12 22:20 Z</small>''
: Basically it is not a language, it is a dialect which we cossacks speak, it is similar to Ukranian/Russian mix (although nothing like the surzhik dialect) but volcabulary is solely Russian (ie флаг is used instead of прапор, аnd Дворец instead of Палац etc) although some ecxeptions exist e.g. Червоны(е) Рассийски(е) Ю(г)а. differences exist mostly in the sounds of Г, В, and О. Moreover the dialect varies so much from stanitsa to stanitsa (and the older generations in particular) that there really is no common version of it. For instance in some places the e at the end is muffled others clearly pronounce it. Well anyway here are some examples:
Take pronounciation of cities: Харькаф, Ки'иф, Петербург (the g at the end is pronounced solid, not like h)
Да шо ты мне (х)оворишь (if there is an h sound then it is very short although in my stanitsa it simply muffled)? Сам знаю шо наши Рус'ськи(э) казачки красние фсех, хотя балтиливые. The э sound at the end of that word is said very briefly but destinguishable.
-Вот был Сталин, да по'аладали потом по'ое'али, но при этам было щастьи а потом умник Хрущоф
-Хрющиф чорт е'о падрал
-Ща ты у миня будеш Хрюкать оГда пад маей шашкай акажишся...Вот взял и ород-ерой (alternatively g's if pronounced are used - no h substitute) СталинГрад периминавал В-Ол'ГоГрад (here is a good example where an В sound is pronounced and also the O sound is fully sounded and streched for longer than in normal Russian) Other examples of BO sound different: сем, осим, девять.
[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks. That's interesting; I can see the Ukrainian connection, although some of it is puzzling since I don't know Russian. Is the akanye usually spelt out, as in "Харькаф"? ''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]] [[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]] <small>2005-11-13 05:04 Z</small>''
::It is spelled out using Moscovite Russian translit here, balachka has no grammar or language, we write in Russian (although some stanitsas use the pre-1918 grammar), also it is spoken very quickly. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
==[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt]]==
I think you would be interested in voting here, especially as there are voices that Halibutt is an anti-Russian (Ukrainian, etc.) POV-pusher. --[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Don't know really, I was not here long enough to become in contact with Halibutt, so I shall withhold for the time being. Anyway you seem to have a strong case against him. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::Ok. I don't have a case against Halibutt. As I explained on his talk page, I will even support him the next time around. But he should learn to dissociate himself from nationalist trolls like Molobo or Space Cadet. If you have had troubles with Molobo, please add the summary of his abuses to my note [[User_talk:Dbachmann#Molobo's RfAr|here]]. I believe we should stand united against his nationalist spree. Thanks, [[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirlandajo]] 14:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
==A bit more on the metro==
Hi there. I have a couple minor questions on your metro project, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulitsa_Podbelskogo&curid=2197317&diff=28587939&oldid=28587890 this edit] in particular. The first one I meant to ask for a while now—it's regarding the names of the architects. You've been using their initials so far, which is understandable, considering that's probably what most of your sources are using. You do, however, also wikilink them. Now, I don't really know much about those people, but do you think they are notable enough to ever have their own articles? My point is, if the only thing they are famous for is the station(s) they designed, maybe there is no need to link their names, especially when only the last name and initials are known. Anyway, that's just my thought.
The second question is regarding the external links section. I'm not sure why you didn't like my wording ("the description of the station on..."), and I'm not going to concern myself with this, but having a note in parentheses indicating that the link leads to the site which is not in English is a common courtesy to the reader. I've read too many interesting articles that made me hungry for more, only to discover that most of the links in the external links section are to the sites written in Chinese, Dutch, or Hebrew. I admit that not many editors concern themselves with these minor details, but since you are developing quite a few articles from scratch, perhaps you'd consider it? Besides, it's often a combination of both content and those minor details that creates a synergy of a great article.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 14:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:I did not wikilink them as I did not write the original article. Sorry about the removal of the description of the links, that was a typo. But why did you revert my translits, I mean since as you said none is right I just wanted to clarify them. Besides Krasniye vs Krasnye is much more logical considering that Y is not a vowel and is not suitable to substitute Ы since the index Ye is used to substute any E that's after a vowel and hence ЫЕ ЫЙ should be translited as IYE and IY consisdering there is no Ы in english anyway, and in my opinion the Y is overused in Russian to english translits anyway. -ий, -ый, й, ы, е. Give I a chance!!![[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 17:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::Sorry, my bad—it was me myself who added the wikilinks (duh!). That was in hopes someone would come and put the full names in. But since you obviously know the topic—do you think it'd be better to replace initials with full names and leave the names linked, or would it be better to simply remove the wikilinks because most of the metro stations architects were not all that notable?
:::Not notable? Nina Aleshina, Robert Pogreboi, Alexandr Dushkin... [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::Being less than a fan of Moscow and its history, I wouldn't know. Surely, some of the architects mentioned in the metro articles are far less notable than the others. Anyway, I'm leaving this up to your judgement to delink those people who do not deserve articles of their own. All I wanted to do their was to bring someone's attention to incomplete names.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification on the external links format, too.
::As for the transliteration (sigh), I did indeed mention that no existing system is "correct" (as well as "incorrect"). The question is again consistency. Yes, we can theoretically use "i" for "ы", but notice, however, that neither ISO-9, nor ALA-LC, nor Allworth, nor BGN/PCGN, nor even GOST systems do so. They all use "y". This is, simply put, a tradition. Why invent new rules? Do you really want to introduce ''yet another transliteration'' system to the slew of already existing ones? In the hindsight, the act of modifying BGN/PCGN (slightly!) for Wikipedia was probably not the best idea, but it was only done because using "y" to indicate "-ый" and "-ий" endings is so common when transliterating Russian into English, and because "yy" for "-ый" looks awful to an English-speaking reader. It makes sense, but it introduced elements of transcription into otherwise clean transliteration system. Substituting "i" for "ы" will add another one—but in this case the question is—why? It is certainly not traditional, and is not even more common (just google for "krasniye" vs "krasnye", or "chistiye" vs "chistye").
::I hope my explanations make sense to you. You won't believe how many times I had similar conversations in the past. So far I've been able to persuade those people that the system currently in place, while definitely not perfect, is the best for Wikipedia considering 1) the number of articles that already use it; 2) the traditions of transliterating Russian into ''English'' (this is English Wikipedia, so the other languages do not really matter much); 3) the fact that the output is so much readable to an English-speaking person; and 4) it can easily be decoded back to Cyrillics even despite some transcription elements.
::Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. I am more than willing to. Take care, —[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::It is not the question of what is commonly used, it is a question of what is correct, I mean the fact that Y is used instead of I whilst there is no ы sound in english at all is not my convention but then hey Galen was used up until 15th century before Versailles corrected him, so conventions make little difference to me, they will make even less difference to an English user, but the overwhelming preference to Y will, especially in since most of the sounds can be split easilly replaced by I. I mean compare Izmaylovsky Park to Izmailovskiy Park. You are saying that an english person will be fully alright and forgiven for saying ИзмаЫловскЫ Парк or Красн'йe Ворота. No wonder that so many foreigners can't pronounce and read Russian correctly. In addition what is Й in Russian? И-Краткое, ie ''I''-Short, so why use Y for it? [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::As far as "correct" goes, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not here to push correct spellings, but to represent common trends (I'll dig you a link to a specific policy, if you don't believe me). In that regards, "Kyiv" is also correct, and "Kiev"—incorrect, yet the article is at [[Kiev]] because that's what the majority of people uses. By your logic, the best way to handle Russian names is to provide phonetic transcription instead of transliteration. Surely IPA is more "correct" by your standards than any of the translit system I described above. But, transliteration, unlike transcription, renders the original name in letters the reader knows and in ways the reader can understand. Tell me, what makes ''Izmailovskiy Park'' superior to ''Izmaylovsky Park''? Following your example, it can just as easily be converted by an uninformed reader back to ''ИзмаИловскиЫ'', which is equally incorrect. Would you rather see ''Izmailovskii''? Same thing, it can be converted to ''ИзмаиловскиИ''—again, incorrect (and that is not to mention that we merely traded one ambiguity for another). What about ''Krasniye''? Why do you accept the possibility of it being read as ''КраснИе''? Face it, there is '''NO''' correct way to transliterate Russian, not if we accept your definition of "correct". In which case, why not stick with something that worked before, is working now, is not an artificial invention, and is accepted by the majority of people? I '''really''' want to hear what you have to say now.
::::As for the "y" being used to transliterate "й"—in modern English "y" is a consonant that sometimes acts as a vowel, which pretty much makes it a semi-vowel. "Й" is also a semi-vowel. To me, that's a perfect match. I'm sure that the authors of all major transliteration systems followed the same logic.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:::::Kiev and Kyiv is more a question of familiarity and the comparison is more like Moscow and Moskva. I agree that it will be impossible to fully transliterate Russian into English (although it is possible to do it into Spanish and German where you have the J). In terms of pronounciaciaon of Izmailovskiy lets remeber that I in english is not limited to the и sound, in fact the sound can also be achieved in ee and ei and other examples, so why limit i to и, so why should it become in Russo-English translit. Moreover Измаиловский is actually not entirely incorrect (depending on which Russian accent you take). Anyway since "history" has made it that y represents Ы, then so be it, but representing other sounds, I can't see the disadvantage of not clarifying something like -ий with -iy. Finally I don't expect foreigners get the Ы sound at all, and most substitute with И anyway. I personally have herd them say Красние Ворота and I am alright with that but when they see something like Izmaylovsky Park most say Измаиловски Парк, I consider that to be a much more serious mistake than Красние Ворота, because this is not due to their mother tongue not having these sounds, but due to the transliteration that is given to them. Don't get me wrong I am against -ii and -yy to duplicate -ий and -ый. I thing that the former in particular should be differentiated from the latter by -iy and -yi or -yj respectivelly. Finally in relation to the Krasniye vorota. Note that the letter E has always been made very clear by (guess what) by using the Y, after a vowel it like in Alekseyevskaya and Belyayevo (I don't even want to imagine how many incorrect ways that can be pronounced), so how does Krasnye Vorota fits into this is the y used for the Ы or the E (and I'll finish with saying I have herd Красне Ворота before)[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 23:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::::::Using "-iy" to represent "-ий" (but not "-ый") is actually all right, even within current policy. In the end, this is the matter of personal taste. I personally like to use "y" anyway (for, you guessed right, consistency sake), but "-iy" has equal rights.
::::::As for "Krasnye Vorota", "ye" for "-ые" here is used for the same reason why "yy" is not used for "-ый", which is to avoid ugliness of double y. What's more, in these borderline cases "ye" is used more often than "yye" (see google, as well as the article on [[Naberezhnye Chelny]]). So basically to conform with policies we should either use "Krasnye" (because it's more common use) or "Krasnyye" (to stick with the translit guidelines; also note that Encarta uses this convention). "Krasniye" may seem as a good idea, but, as I mentioned above, such variant is not used by any major transliteration system, and Wikipedia should mirror common knowledge/use (to the point where it does not contradict the facts, of course) instead of inventing new conventions. Again, the final variant boils to the personal preference. As for foreigners pronouncing stuff incorrectly—well, they are foreigners, they would pronounce things incorrectly and/or with accent even if transliteration were perfect.
::::::Anyway, I will try to compile a list of most common objections to and questions about [[Transliteration of Russian into English|current Wikipedia transliteraton system]]. I should have probably done it long ago, because having the same conversation over and over, only with different people every time, is really a chore. If you want to suggest any objections/questions for such a list, feel free to drop me a note or just continue commenting here. Thanks.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 02:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
== Ulitsa 1905 Goda ==
I think Ulitsa Tysyacha Devyatsot Pyatogo (1905) Goda should be shortened to Ulitsa 1905 Goda since "Ulitsa Tysyacha Devyatsot Pyatogo (1905) Goda" is rather long for an article title and makes the TKL template uncomfortably wide. I don't see any advantage to spelling out 1905, especially since "Ulitsa 1905 Goda" is the spelling commonly used elsewhere, including Metro signs. [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 01:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
:But not how its pronounced in the loudspeakers, anyway I don't really mind, but certainly spell it fully out on the article.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 08:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks, the template looks a lot better. [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
==Volyn Crop and [[Holodomor]]==
Hi Kazak, that's an interesting point that you're rising. I think the good places to check for this would be [http://www.archiwa.gov.pl/?CIDA=43 National Archives] or [http://www.aan.gov.pl/index2.htm The New Archives] (but the latter don't seem to have an English version online) or maybe [http://www.stat.gov.pl/english/index.htm Central Statistical Office]. Your question seems intriguing and I'll try to investigate it but it's going to take some time, as I'm rather busy these days. Also, we have to remeber that wikipedia is not a place for original research, so we should be rather basing on other authors' works. As far as I know there's been no famine in the 1930-s in Western Ukraine, so that would seem to confirm that the famine in Eastern Ukraine at that time had to be politically driven rather than a natural disaster. As for neutral historians (that is not Polish/Russian/Ukrainian), I've checked that Norman Davies in his "God's Playground" writes that Ukrainians in Poland at that time were horrified at their neighbours across the border starving to death. This would also confirm that it was not a natural famine, but one that was artificially made. Cheers for now. --[[User:Wojsyl|Wojsyl]] <sup>([[User talk:Wojsyl|talk]])</sup> 10:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
== Congratulations! ==
Just want to congratulate you and your wife [[User:Alex Bakharev|abakharev]] 08:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
::Thank you. Summer 2006. [[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 22:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
== Architects ==
== Architects' initials ==
What exactly is the problem with giving the initials of the Moscow Metro architects? [[User:Camerafiend|Camerafiend]] 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
:I hope Kazak does not mind me answering this question for him (since it was me bugging him about it in the first place). Actually, there is really no problem. It is just preferable to give full names, if they are known. If they are not known, then, of course, initials are better than nothing, but in that case the names should probably not be wikilinked.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 01:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
::I suggest we leave it as surnames alone, and besides official names of Russians are never given (in Wikipedia) with their (son of ) "middle" name. So if giving initials, then just the first name.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 08:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
==RfAr==
An [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Community vs. User:AndriyK|arbitration request]] against [[User:AndriyK]] has been filed. If you intend to participate/co-sign, please add your name to the "Involved parties" section and write a statement.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)]] 18:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
== Question ==
Are Kuban kazaks Russians, Ukrainians or Kazaks?
IMO it is Russian sub-ethnical group.
RGRDS
[[User:Ben-Velvel|Ben-Velvel]] 14:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
We are Cossacks. Кубанские Казаки. Checl 2002 census.
My opinion: the followng people Velikorossians, Malorossians, Belorossians, Pomorians, Carpathian Ruthenians and Cossacks are just the different variations of the Russian slavic group. The fact that in 1917 the term Russian was privatised to the Velikorossians is the source of confusion. Cossacks in the 1926 census could not decide where they belong and as they are neither Veliko or Malorossians, culturally and ethnically. Most of the Cossacks by default were turned into Russians (Don, Terek, Ural etc). With us Kubanese when faced with question Russian and Ukranians they would have digested it as Veliko or Malorossians? Well we are neither and there are countless ethnographical accounts which say that Cossacks are a subgroup and do not belong to either side of the eastern slavic branches. In 1926 they would have said we are Cossacks, the census people after their failed attempt to lingustically destinguish the population simply split them, 50:50 and called for further research. Thereby the census itself concludes that the data is provisionary. The fact that US government can't understand that is not surprising, I mean there is a destinct percentage of the US population that thinks in our country winter is all year round and bears walk on our streets.[[User:Kuban kazak|Kuban kazak]] 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
What an original point of view! I must write it down. It can be used as smart joke. Especialy this part: "...Carpathian Ruthenians... variation of Rissian slavic group..." LOL!!! Did you tell them already? I think you should, Kazak - they struggle to find identity for a long time already.--[[User:Oleh Petriv|Oleh Petriv]] 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
== Dnipro ==
Kazak, I would gladly take into account your suggestions, but unfortunately I have low credibility in them. Even if I'm only few days here, on English Wikipedia, I have formed my opinion already on your style of writing and changes as well as couple of other "brothers" like Ghirlandajo. Sorry for being so direct. I will talk over the issue about names with Irpen. He seems to be reasonable person. And don't worry too much about poor Anglophones. In this case this excuse in nothing more than a way to promote or pro-Russian point of view.--[[User:Oleh Petriv|Oleh Petriv]] 01:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
| |||