Talk:Maladzyechna/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Proposed page move: from Maładečna to Molodechno

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 no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 06:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Explanation:

Thus established English name. I request page move Maładečna to Molodechno.--Kuban Cossack 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no sufficient indication that the city has an established name as Molodechno, which is a transliteration from Russian, not Belarussian. As WP Name Convention prescribes, the city name should be transliterated from Belarussian language. The "official city link" listed above is incorrect. KPbIC 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
That is the official city server. BRITANNICA uses that article. Moreover there is no clause that Lacinka is the official translit system of wiki. So when Monkbel moved the article, that was clearely Original research.--Kuban Cossack 00:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
First, you tried to move it to Maladzechna, then you requested a move to Molodecheno, now you have switched to Molodechno. This is an indication that you no have no idea what the "established English name" of the city is. KPbIC 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Maladzechna would have been a revert to an original researched move by a user who wants to use wiki to revive lacinka. Molodecheno was a clear typo for which I apologise and correct. Molodechno is the English name I want to move it to. --Kuban Cossack 00:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support my nomination --Kuban Cossack 23:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- KPbIC 23:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Any reasons?--Kuban Cossack 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Read above! KPbIC 00:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. City is not very important and therefore no established english name;
  2. The official geographical names transliteration system, legalized about 2000, spells it as Maładečna;
    official translit system would give it as Maladečna as there is no ł in it. --Kuban Cossack 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    So do it that way at least! --Zlobny 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    There is no such thing as at least. We either take it to Maladzechna or Molodechno. I personally have no preference--Kuban Cossack 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Molodechno is simply wrong since it is transliteration from Russian (usual thing in Soviet Union, dominated by Russian), but it is Belarusian city now, that's why it should be transliterated from Belarusian. --Monk 05:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Monk, please, give a link or an exact name of source for that official geographical names transliteration system. --Zlobny 07:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • And Belarus still has Russian as its state language. Your point? --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Having Russian as a state language in Belarus is really a great distress for Belarusian nation as for nation. Because actually Russian prevails and humiliates Belarusian. Luckily national self-consciousness of Belarusians is awaking nowadays in spite of all the repressive work of communists, imperialists and idiotic panslavists. --Zlobny 07:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well that is a POV, if it makes you grieve, I am sorry, but that is how thigs currentely stand in Belarus, and will for another five years at least. If it makes you want to commit suicide, I am not stopping you. However this encyclopedia has to recognise the rules and laws as well as the tendencies of official Belarus. Hey 15 years and Kiev is still predominant over Kyiv, despite all Svidomy attempts. Even if Batka goes...that is a century at least. So might as well accept things the way they are. --Kuban Cossack 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Lachinka is not official spelling in Belarus or elsewhere. Current spelling is just original research. No survey needed to move, I believe. --Ghirla -трёп- 06:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support move. Anything aside, Lacinka has no standing as far as naming conventions are conserned. As far as the proposed name, combined authority of Britannica and google test for the usage settles it for me. --Irpen 06:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lacinka has established rules and more than four hundred years tradition of usage. The first Belarusian newspaper Naša Niva widely used lacinka on its pages. --Zlobny 07:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • What does it have to with WP:Naming conventions? --Irpen 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Based on the latin alphabet łacinka is the most pertinent for transliteration of Belarusian names --Zlobny 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • That is Original research besides wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for having Lacinka regain popularity.
  • Support the google results are quite impressive abakharev 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's because of ru-net is wider than by-net --Zlobny 07:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • www.Molodechno.by - OFFICIAL city portal. --Kuban Cossack 18:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I would expect that ru-net and by-net are using cyrillic. Latin spelling is mostly relevent to the usage is en-net. Here we are on English wiki are trying to find the most common English usage not the most common Russian or Belarusian one. abakharev 07:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I've just meant that the policy of namings tends to be pro-Russian, because of a spread of Russian is wider in comparison with a spread of Belarusian --Zlobny 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • So, why in your opinion should wiki oppose the tendency of English language? If you read the rules, wiki is not to be a platform for political reasons. It must accept the tendencies the way they are irrespective of national or political issues. --Kuban Cossack 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I have also used Google search for the English pages only and excluding Wikipedia. Results: Molodechno - 38700 Hits [1], Maladzechna - 278 hits [2], and Maładečna - 29 hits [3]. I think the difference is even more dramatic. abakharev 07:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Is Google a clench? Better make a look to The official geographical names transliteration system --Zlobny 08:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • According to WP:CYR#Belarusian: 1. Where that spelling is established in English, Belarusian is transliterated using the Russian method (below) 2. Elsewhere it is written in the Łacinka alphabet. I would argue that 38K hits show an established usage. Now lets see that the other users think abakharev 08:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Anyway, Molodechno is a transliteration from Russian, not from Belarusian using the Russian method (Maladechna or Maladzechna) Zlobny 08:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Well ask the person who moved it originally from Maladzechna, then reverted again, and the other person who too reverted it numerously..--Kuban Cossack 22:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose and why exactly should we propose the Russian spelling over the Belarusian? Because it's more popular? Or perhaps because more people speak Russian than Belarusian? //Halibutt 09:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Because Maładečna is Lacinka and not Belarusian, which FYI uses cyrillic. WP:NC call for transliteration from the native langiage. Lacinka is not a transliteration of cyrillic. It is an alternatice alphabet which has no official standing and almost zero acceptance. --Irpen 16:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Looks like you are just deluded by Kuban Cossack's deceitful anti-Belarusian propaganda.[citation needed] I'm so sorry about this --Zlobny 20:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry but where did you see me starting anti-Belarusian propaganda, please avoid deliberate misinformation. --Kuban Cossack 20:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Exuse me! May be it was too emotional. But it seems your wikipedian activities are directed against Belarusian language, pre-Russian history of Belarus and etc... Why Molodechno, if Маладэчна in Belarusian wiki? Why not Lacinka, if it is an adequate Latin alphabet for Belarusian?Zlobny 20:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Well don't get emotional, control yourself. Second, I have nothing against Belarusian language or be-wiki. But this is an ENGLISH wikipedia, and it has ENGLISH users. Now if you look at history I have tried to move the article to Maladzechna, which I actually would more support since it is not such a widespread word to have a Russian name justify (unlike Vitebsk and Mogilev). However Lacinka is extreamely misleading as nobody will know how to pronounce some of the letters, it has negligent usage inside Belarus yet alone outside it, and frankly I see no point why people used it here in the first place. I mean would you give ancient Egyptian hyroglyphical title for Egyptian cities? As for the country, I actually respect it very much. --Kuban Cossack 21:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
              • OK! i would try to take it easier! But all the letters of Lacinka are Latin! :) --Zlobny 21:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
                • As are english letters, and it is english letters that should be used in an english encyclopedia.--Kuban Cossack 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • And what about Chişinău, Limba_noastră, Dubăsari, Hînceşti ans so on? Are ş and ă English letters? --Zlobny 05:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
                      1. Chişinău is an official spelling used in UN and atlases unlike Lacinka which is not used anywhere.
                      2. Romainian language is the official of Moldova, Russian is not, unlike in Belarus.
                      3. I am not even going to bother which one Britannica uses, but Googling Chişinău vs Kishinev - 5,5 million against 772 thousand. Unlike Maladzechna vs Maładečna where the latter looses out 1,800 vs 135.
                      4. Finally the naming conventions of Moldovan and Romainian cities are well established in wiki. (Unlike Belarusian).
                      5. Be Dobry! --Kuban Cossack 17:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Could you pls be a little more specific in where I am deluded by KK or anyone for that matter? I specifically objected only to replacing the standard transliteration by established rules with Lacinka which has no standing as far as our conventions are conserned. The dispute between Russian and Belarusian would we Molodechno vs Maladechna. If you prefer Maladechna, let's discuss it. But Lacinka Maładečna has to go in any case. --Irpen 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Because Maładečna is Lacinka and not Belarusian??? Ha-ha-ha! It's an outright rubbish! Zlobny 06:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Well is Lacinka officially recognised by the Republic of Belarus? I don't think so I would reconsider what do you call Belarusian. My Dobry freind --Kuban Cossack 17:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I agree that we should move it because of the number of google hits, and that the current name for article is rarely used, but IMO, we should rather move it to Maladzechna because it is the Belarusian name for a Belarusian city (although Russian is also official). —DDima (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well ask the people who reverted my move FOUR times. I too originaly reverted monk by moving it to its correct Belarusian spelling, however a person known only as a rat reverted it. --Kuban Cossack 02:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. I agree to all opposing reasons already brought here (Maładečna is Belarusian city, and thus must be spelled in Belarusian, and because Belarusian has its own Latin script, also official for geographical transliterations). Also, it is very clear that the proposed this change is in fact motivated more by somebody's biased views, rather than by reasons listed above. Juras14 00:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry but where did you find Maładečna in western 'geographical' areas? Please cite this. Maladzechna is indeed Belarusian and should be given in a name that will be adressed to the English reader. Now the Belarusian Lacinka (be i biased or not) is not used anywhere (even inside Belarus). Finally this change is actually a reversion of and I quote somebody's biased views that caused it to be moved from Maladzechna on 5th November--Kuban Cossack 01:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Belarus is a country geographicly in the very heart of Europe, with a population comparable to Belgium or Sweden and yet an avarage person seems to know less about Belarusians then about Papuans and Zulus. Due to twelve years of Łukašenka regime the country was unable to make a normal recovery like other postcommunist states and most of the information about it available to westerners still comes through Russia so it isn't really supprising Russian names are more common on the internet, an encylopedia should however aspire higher and seek information from the source, especially that as I can see there are Belarusians willing to contribute to wikipedia (and strangely enough it seems as if though some people don't want them to). As for Łacinka there is no reason why we should transliterate Belarusian into English as if it was Russian, given that it is not. Since the Belarusian language has a historical latin alphabet we should use, just as we do for Serbian.

First of all let us retain NPOV, weather twelve years of Łukašenka regime the country was unable to make a normal recovery like other postcommunist states is relevant for Belarusian politics NOT wikipedia. Now here are some solid facts. Russian is the official language of Belarus. Russian has state preference in official Belarus. We don't have Karkov or Lugansk because those cities are Russophone since official Ukrainian titles are used. Now Lacinka is not recognised by any international body and has no official usage as opossed to Serbo-Croatian. The current cyrillic alphabet is the sole representetive of Belarusian script. Finally wrt to there is no reason why we should transliterate Belarusian into English as if it was Russian, given that it is not. the reason is a) Belarusian translit system is a MESS right now as there is no adopted standards on which grammatical rules they use (Slutsk or Slutsak, Minsk or Mensk etc.). Russian names however, like it or not are most common in the english langauge. This wiki is aimed at English readers, and words most common to them should be used. With respect to this name, Britannica uses Molodechno, I think that says something. --Kuban Cossack 20:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if for example the Serbian alphabet is recognized by some international body and don't really see why whould an alphabet need to be regulated by some comitee.
Well why would UN and some English press use that alphabet? Because that is widespread. Lacinka is not used ANYWHERE. Even in Belarus it is known by a minority of people. --Kuban Cossack 13:29, 16 May 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.

proposal to treat issues separately

Since Halibutt doesn't follow on the objections (while he is online), KPbIC acted obviously in order just to aggravate Kuban kazak rather than anything else and since Kazak is now wasting time on this, KPbIC should not feel his mission accomplished anyway, I suggest we move on and decide it not by a direct vote but first by a discussion.

Well I would draw his attention to likecases on WP:STALK and what happened to those people. --Kuban Cossack 05:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Kuban Cossack, let me make it straightforward. You personality is of no importance to me. It's actually you who wrote about half on the total amount of messages on my talk page, insulting (Russian vocabulary), trolling (May 9), asking some nonsense. I repeatedly told you to move all the discussion to the articles' talk pages. And you were repeatedly told to be civil. Second, and most important, here and on Homyel, on Kiev Metro and Kharkiv Metro, and on many other articles I have to say that your actions are clear and simple: Russification, and we were over of this before. It's all about the specific Russian POV pushing that hard not to notice for the community. KPbIC 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
May 9 was a congradualtions. If you take shame in that peice of your history I cannot well, shame on you then. Metro articles were throughly discussed. Maybe you can tell me why you kept an anon account STALKED all of my actions AND reverted everything and then used your dynamic IP as an upper hand in edit wars. My actions are neither Russification, but rather de-Ukrainization and de-Lacinikazation. The former does not actually include removing the Ukrainian but by adding Russian where necessary, the latter also does not include Russfication. How is moving this to Maladzechna (a Belarusian tranlist - which you reverted four times) Russfication? Also if we are going to value people, then how many ORIGINAL articles did you write?--Kuban Cossack 13:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
May 9 was a trolling, and actually some form of stalking. Your attempts to move this page and Homyel to Gomel were in violation of Belarusian WP Naming Convention. Your new metro map on Kharkiv Metro is yet another violation of Ukrainian WP Naming Convention. All such changes are made in one and only one direction: Russification.
Yes I drew the map of a Metro that remains russophone to this day...Now that is just silly thinking that was Russification. May9th was a mass congradulations of a victory that YOUR own grandparents probably fought for. If you spit on such proud history...well no comment as they say in the west.(BTW I congradulated over 15 people simultaneously, from Armenians and Georgians to Azerbaijanis and Ukrainians) and only you have so far voiced objection to that holy date. Now presentely there is no wikipedia naming convention for Belarusian. That is fact. There is a WP:RUS for Russian names and there is a WP:CYR which a project to develop a single cyrillic system for wikipedia. Now that I think is crucial. Is that Russification? No that is called improvement of wikipedian quality.--Kuban Cossack 19:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I do know what my grandfathers were fighting for, and one of them didn't come back from that war. I do as well remember stories of my grandparents on Holodomor in 1930s and 1950s, and about other "benefits" of the Soviet system. And you were aware that I don't have such views on the "great Soviet victory in the WWII" as you do, thus there was no point for any "congradulations", other than your trolling and stalking.
Yes there is no need to congradulate, as those veterans are never happy anyway with the system that they fought for. Do explain this large gathering [4] (as in your opinion they would have nothing to celebrate) or veterans carrying intersting slogans. [5]. If anything I'll trust their opionion on the matter not yours, and yes my deepest respect to those men and women. --Kuban Cossack 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Now, as it stated in WP:STALK "threatening another person is considered harassment". So, stop harassing me and others with some potential nonsense like on behalf of "whole Russian and Ukrainian community". If you think you are stalked then go and write that you attempted to move pages in violation of the naming convention, and a day later I reverted it and that significantly interrupted your furhter POV activity, and you think it's a violation of WP:STALK. KPbIC 19:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Answer me this in all honesty. If it was someone else who moved this page to Maladzechna, would you have reverted it? --Kuban Cossack 19:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Kuban Cossack, there is nothing specific in your personality, which is of my interest. If it were not you, but somebody else moving Homyel and then Maładečna with silly comments without discussion then I would have reverted it. You know that these are controvesial moves, and you know it should be first discussed, and that was my point. Do you somehow want ot hide such moves? Be honest, express your thoughts on the talk page first, let the others respond (if any) and then move it. That is what you were told many times.
Really, in that case would this not fall into being controversial, and why did you not revert it? :) --Kuban Cossack 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Bottom line, as the discussion on this talkpage indicates, you were wrong attempting to move the page without discussion, and I was right pointing the need for discussion. KPbIC 20:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
The talk page has one clear conclusion: Molodechno no, Maladzechna yes. So in fact the truth is opposite of your comment. --Kuban Cossack 21:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Another move opponent (Zlobny) seems to accept that this debate is first of all not about Russian vs Belarusian but about attempt to use Lacinka against any naming convention, I suggest with split the issue as such.

  1. Current Lacinka-based name is unacceptable.
  2. Further discussion should be only to decide decide between Molodechno and Maladzechna (or Maladechna).

If we see a consensus or near-consensus on this, we can discuss the choise between Molodechno, Maladzechna and Maladechna only from now on and if we can't agree, we could put this up for a vote between these (which I hope won't be necessary). No need to say, "I support" below but please comment or object. If this would end up a workable solution, we dump the previous vote and start discussion only which of the three Molodechno, Maladzechna and Maladechna to use. --Irpen 02:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the current WP:CYR tells us to use Lacinka if no English established name is found. We can obviously edit the guidance but it needed to be discussed on the talk there. The discussion WP:CYR#Belarusian/Russian transliteration seems to be interesting but seems to eventually led nowhere. As far as I am concern, the less funny characters that are not used in English will be in the transliteration, the better abakharev 03:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like that to change, having wikipedia be a platform to try getting a system that has no official usage anywhere, to become more widespread is rediculous and violates WP:NOR. I propose to remove it from wiki altogether. --Kuban Cossack 04:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Alex and Irpen but I'm missing your point completely. WHY do we need to modify WP:CYR? Did I miss any dramatic historical changes in Belarus or elsewhere, which happened in the last few days? And, Alex, why the letters are funny? Dozen nations in Europe use such letters, and they treat them as native. It's not in a standard English alphabet, but what is "funny" with that? KPbIC 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:CYR is still not adopted as it is a slow process that is currentely getting into its final stage. Belarusian translits on the other hand are a MESS. There are several systems in use on wiki. On one side we have the Lacinka which is officially not recognised anywhere (including in Belarus mind you). On the other side we have a Russian equivelent on all names that presentely have MUCH more popularity in all english publications. Then we have several Belarusian translit systems that are scholarly acceptable, and are more widespread than Lacinka (at least on Atlases) but wiki seams to have no clear definition on which to use. What I see is that all Belarusian names are treated as a Kiev/Kyiv equivelence in all English press and literature (including Britannica). --Kuban Cossack 05:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have a number of issues over the Lacinka:
  1. It uses characters that an ordinary reader of wikipedia have no clue how to pronounce or how to enter on their keyboards.
  2. It tends to produce names that are barely used in English, e.g. if we look into the Google results, among 36 hits for Maładečna only 4 hits uses proper letters, the other hits are actually to Maladecna. That means that an American schoolboy could not find this Maładečna place on the map or on Internet, or, probably, realize that this is the same Molodechno, his great-grandmother came from.
  3. All official Belarusian servers use other spelling for their English version. Lukashenka does not like Lacinka (I am not a Lukashenka's fun but it is him who rule Belarus now).
  4. I have a feeling (may be wrong) that many Belarusians are not comfortable with Lacinka.
  5. No English Encyclopaedias (Columbia, Britannica, etc.) use Lacinka
  6. Some people consider Lacinka as an instrument of Polonization of Belarus, Polonization is not better then Rusification, is it?
My feelings on the matter are probably twisted by my Russian heritage, feelings of other editors may be twisted by the understandable desire to make a WP:Point against Lukashenka or against russification in general. That is why I asked User:Mikkalai to take part in the discussion. If he would said that Lacinka is the best for the Belarusian editors I am withdrawing my objections, if he would say that Lacinka is unsuitable, I would stand against it quite strongly. The problem is he is avoiding direct suggestions so far. abakharev 06:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
ad 1 the same is true for just about any non English language, it can be a worked around by including a real phonetical transcription and when possible a recordin but still an avarage English speaker won't be able to pronounce Slavic names.
ad 2 I highly doubt Maładečna is refered to often by any name in English, as for the hypothetical schoolboy the same applies to Pressburg or Fiume and a whole lot of other cities.
ad 3 doesn't really need a comment
ad 4 it just so happens there are a few Belarusians on wikipedia, let's ask them. It doesn't make sense to have a Russian and a Bulgarian disscus this.
ad 5 today still most westerners get they're knowledge about Belarus through Russia
ad 6 nonsense, if anything it would be Lithuanization, have You ever seen written Polish, it's completely diffrent, in fact written Belarusian is closer to Czech and Slovak and southern languages such as Serbian, Croat and Slovenian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.192.5 (talk • contribs)
1 For the most of non English languages we reproduce the original spelling in their country. Lacinka is just another way of transliteration Belarusian version of cyrillic, why should we artificially create problems for the English readers. We had the same problem with transliterations of Russian and after long debates chose a special system Wikipedia:Romanization of Russian Modified BGN/PCGN transliteration that does not have non-English characters/intuitive/have reasonable prononciation/usualy closer to the most-frequent English usage. The same with Ukrainian.
2 If you had bothered to read this talk, you would find that Molodechno produces 37K English-language hits include all official Belarusian servers, oficial city site, Brittanica, etc. It is wealth of information.
3 Well, since the official Belarusian sources never use lacinka it means that the users would have difficulty finding any Belarusian info
4 Agree
5 Dubious, so what
6 Written Belarusian is written in Cyrillic, it might resemble Serbian or Bulgarian or Macedonian, it is hardly resembles Czech. For the sentiments just ask User:Irpen about the sentiments some Ukrainians feel about Latynka - a very similar system for the transliteration of Ukrainian. abakharev 08:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I hear about Latynka and as far as I cant tell it seems like an unsuccesfull attempt from the 19th century. Łacinka on the other hand dates back to the 16th century and is the alphabet that the earliest form of modern Belarusian was written in and was used by the greatest Belarusian writers. Now as for the Polonization, the Polish alphabet is actually quite unique among Slavic nations and seems to be somewhat influenced by German ortography (for example using the letter "w" where all others use "v"). I'm no expert on Slavic languages it's just a hobby, so if there is anything wrong please fix it, but take a look at the folowing table I took the time to make. As You can see the Latin alphabet used by Belarusians is actaully much closer to any other Slavic language (and to Lithuanian) then to Polish.
sound Belarusian Polish Sorbian,Czech,Slovakian,Slovenian,Croatian,Serbian and Lithuanian(where applicable)
t̠͡ɕ Ć Ć Ć
tʃ Č Cz Č
[[[w]]] Ł Ł Ł
ɕ Ś Ś
ʃ Š Sz Š
u̯ Ŭ
ʒ Ž Ż or Rz Ž or Ř
Belarusian Ł doesn't sound like [[[w]]], but hard [[[l]]]! --Zlobny 05:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet, this is an English wikipedia, and the fact of how close or far away Lacinka is is irrlevant, it has no usage in any of the ENGLISH language publications, official and unofficial. Hence using lacinka for titling names of cities whose non-lacinka names (be they translits into Belarusian or Russian) exceed their use exponentially is absurd. Lacinka has to go from titles and replaced by tranliterations, for most cases this should be done via Belarusian (like Maladzechna) and for large cities - Mogilev, Vitebsk etc. --Kuban Cossack 19:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Belarusian cities naming conventions

Please let us discuss this in one place, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names)#Belarus and put final decisions into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Belarus `'mikka (t) 03:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberation

Hi all. I've recently expanded the article. I also noticed that, immediately afterwards, Kuban Kazak changed some of the words in the text, calling my addition of geographical coordinates a vandalism. I wonder what is the reason for that, especially that all of the statements disputed by KK are perfectly sourced. So, if it was the USSR to be the liberator it's good for Wikipedia, but if it was Poland to assume that role it's bad? Double standards anyone? //Halibutt 14:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Now KK reverted me again, this time claiming he reverted to the original (that is mine :) ) version. Strange... Not to mention that this was a very likely blind revert, as he also deleted one of the references and the geographical coordinates added by yours truly. //Halibutt 23:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, as far as "liberation" usage goes, please don't bring up the frivolous arguments similar to your another flawed analogy. What mattered for "liberation" usage elsewhere is "liberation from Nazis", not that the advance was the Russian one or whoevers. You've been told that many times. You've been also given an example that '39 Soviet advance into SPR is never called liberation by anyone here. Repeated resurrections of one and the same thing already answered elsewhere amounts to trolling. --Irpen 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

With the difference that the usage of the term here is also supported with sources and I don't see why is it acceptable elsewhere while not acceptable here. Double standards anyone? Also, repeated removal of sourced text without a single word of explanation borders vandalism. //Halibutt 07:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
No double standards are not the case, quite the opposite 1921 - capture and annexation; 1939 capture and annexation. 1944 - Liberation for east and west fronts. I think that is pure logic, nothing else...--Kuban Cossack 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So, if sources call it "liberation" for 1921 we should call it "capture". If sources call it "liberation" for 1944 we should call it "liberation". And you dare to deny there's double standards here? Or perhaps there's something I'm missing? //Halibutt 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If one source calls it liberation for 1921 it means nothing. If a prevailing majority of WW2 literature calls the Red Army 1943-45 offensive a "liberation" we are allowed to call it such.

If a user continually questions for obvious and easy to find answers, it is called WP:TROLL#Pestering. --Irpen 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And now please be so kind as to explain how is that related to this article? Also, the version you so strongly support with reverts has serious logical flaws. Who granted the town to Poland in 1921? Imperial Russia? Also, if the city had been a part of Poland before and afterwards, then what's wrong with saying that it was restored to Poland, just like the sources call it? Is it yet another situation when people oppose sourced statements with their own POV rather than their sources?
I shall revert to neutral version as soon as I have time - unless of course someone points me to some argument. //Halibutt 22:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As to how this is related to article, my first sentence is related to an article, and my second sentenence is related to your previous entry in particular. I did not discuss "granted". It may be "granted" by Riga and this is a secondary question. I discussed '19 liberated. --Irpen 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In your first sentence you've stated your distrust in one of the sources used in this article. This is related to the source, not to the article as such, but it's a different matter. Anyway, from the discussion at Talk:Lviv and other related talk pages I drew a conclusion that there would be no opposition to the word "liberation" as long as there are sources backing it. I even made a short list of liberated towns and I'm planning to add relevant texts to all articles. Kiev (liberated from the Russians in 1920, of course), Moscow, Smolensk, Koziatyn, Pinsk, Minsk... Poles used to liberate half of Eastern Europe from time to time and if there may be acceptance to call the Soviet occupiers with the strongly loaded term, then why not the Poles? //Halibutt 22:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I repeat, that if we can find a source that publishes the POV that Slavs are an inferior breed to the Arian nations or, that Western Slavs are Europeans but Eastern Slavs are barbarians (the thesis favored by one friend of yours btw) this does not automatically qualify such thesis to be included in the article, unless we discuss the criticism of racial theories or such.

The term liberated is used to discuss Soviet advance on Nazis throughout the academic literature and, thus, is widely accepted in the mainstream, which is confirmed by, say EB an CE, while both state that they adhere to NPOV policy and both written by the top scholars of the field who summarize the mainstream views and get peer-reviewed. The only reason why the term "Soviet occupation" is acceptable for '39 is exactly the same one, it is being used widely by the respected sholars. Who are you or me to decide on our own whether the particular terms are applicable to the 1794 Warsaw Uprising, the Khatyn incident or the Battle of Dnieper? We can't force our judgement into Wikipedia even if we manage to cherry-pick a source or too that say something. It is the overall usage that matters. Now that you read that for the umpteenth time, go ahead with your plan and we will all watch. --Irpen 23:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I read it once again for the umpteenth time, I'm still curious as the original questions were not even mentioned (not to mention a reply) in your comment above. You've written a nice elaborate (with some personal remarks, as always), on a rather unrelated subject. Are we discussing Soviets and Nazis here? Nope. We're discussing Poles and Bolsheviks here.
Besides, who are you to decide whether the source is wrong and you (personally! Your own POV) are right or to the contrary? This discussion leads nowhere I'm afraid. I'm asking why do you and yours vandalize this article and you're replying to a question asked in a completely different article. Two-way conversation with no common points, I'm afraid. //Halibutt 00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, if you can't see the answer above, I will repeat it although I get a feeling that I am just feeding you. If you have a source that calls Polish occu.. whatever of Western Ukrainian and Belarus as "Liberation", it by itself doesn't allow to use the word matter-of-factly (while inside the citation it should be OK). To just use within the text flow, you need to show that such usage is established widely in the mainstream, not in one or two sources. Of course, we can get into endless arguing over "how wide is enough" but there is such a word as "common sense", "reasonableness" and "WP:Don't be a Dick". Those things have no strict definition and we can always request a community advise over how wide scholarly usage can reasonably warrant Wikipedia usage. I hope you are not saying that in 1919 events "liberation" is used comparibly to its usage for 1944.

Then I brought up the examples of such usage "'39 occupation", "'43-45 liberation". If we are talking about a simple factual dispute, a single respected ref is usually enough. Here, we are not discussing who took controll of the town in 1919, Poles or Reds. We are discussing what term is widely and universally applicable. For '44 its liberation, for '39 its occupation, for 1919 I am afraid there is no strong term that's so universally accepted and we use "took", or "captured" or "advanced" or "regained" or others.

BTW, it would be nice if you show the diff where I vandalized this article or issue an apology but I know that the former statement is false and the latter is wishful thinking. Besides, I've seen worse from yourself.

BTW, is it OK to write "Krakau (Krakow)" when speaking about the city in Austrian Empire's time, "Varshava (Warsaw]])" when speaking about Imperial Russia's times" Just similarly to your Nowohorodek and Wilno, Wolodarka, etc. --Irpen 01:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

ring any bells? I explained to you already that I consider POV-pushing and introduction of double standards a vandalism, even if the official wiki definition of vandal is more narrow.
As to Krakau and Varshava - I said it 100 times before and I'll say it 100 times again, if that's what you need: I would agree to such a usage, I even stated so explicitly during the Talk:Gdansk dispute. Perhaps not in the two cases you mention, but I wouldn't oppose Novoalexandriysk for Puławy, Novogeorgiyevsk for Modlin, Peremyshl for Przemyśl and so on. The reason why Warsaw and Kraków do not fall into that category is that Warsaw was has got an established English name since times immemorial and we use it regardless of the current local official name. Kraków is also a special case (much like Lwów) as there were three official languages of Galicia: Polish, German and Latin, so there's no problem with using the Polish name for the period if we don't want to use the contemporary English name of Cracow.
As to other issues - I hope you don't expect me to honour your insults with a comment. //Halibutt 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Maladzechna <==> Maładečna

Move from my talk page:

If as per this edit you consider official Belarusian transliteration based on the Belarusian cyrillic a "vandalised" version of Lacinka, I would be interested to hear that at Talk:Lacinka, talk:Belarusian language and WP:NC(CYR). Regards, --Irpen 01:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the version, which was before moving by Ghirlandajo. Discussion did not yet end and I suppose that before his completions follows to refrain the pages from moving. Your editing I consider wrong. Latinka this not Polonized spelling, but one of history belorussian. --Yakudza 06:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I also moved the article back. The tally at the top of this page states specifically that there is no consensus to move this article. Why do it against the community? //Halibutt 12:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
How about my attempt at compromise? No doubt it will be reverted on sight, but at least I tried... (I mean this diff). //Halibutt 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm, thanks for the response, guys. I really appreciate your cooperation and wiki spirit. //Halibutt 09:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the move discussion above, most people did not want to move ot Molodechno but did agree that Lacinka should go. If you look at the bottom of discussion on WP:CYR, all of the Lacinka's supporters could not master a single scholarly objection for an obsolete and ineffective system. It is pointless to keep a misleading version of the article. Move to the one that is most common per WP:Naming conventions. --Kuban Cossack 13:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, as a matter of fact the supporters of the move did not present such arguments either, unless of course one treats google as a scholarly work. It is pointless to move this article back and forth and an average wiki reader would not give a darn whether the town is named this or that way. What they need is a set of redirects to point to the proper article and the article itself, the name we use is of secondary meaning. Having said that, I must say that I have a comforting feeling that I did something good by writing this article when you guys were struggling over the naming of a mere stub. Now at least there's something to fight for ;)
Now then, regardless of our interpretation of the voting above, the fact remains that there was no consensus to move the article. Because of that, and because of the strong opposition to the effect of the voting, I proposed a compromise solution that mentions both versions of the name in the header. What's wrong with my proposal? //Halibutt 15:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
So...? Any chance to resolve this problem or is everyone waiting for the move block to be lifted to start the childish game once again? //Halibutt 08:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we shall move it to the appropriate name and then ask the page to be protected, using the underhand tactics like you did... More seriously, it was you who asked the page to be protected and it's you who should prove that Lachinka has an official status in Belarus and should be given preference in this English-language international encyclopaedia. I know it's hard for you to accept that Molodechno is not part of Poland any more, but so far you failed to provide any reasons for polonizing the name of a Belarusian town. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, my dear Ghirlandajo, you are completely and utterly mistaken.
  1. I have no problem accepting the fact that the town is not a part of Poland. I don't care. Frankly, I'm too young to give a darn about it.
  2. Secondly, as a linguist in spe I can assure you that there is a huge difference between Polish language and Belarusian language, just like there is a difference between the Polish alphabet and Łacinka. I never suggested to Polonize the name of this article, even though on Polish wikipedia the name of the town is indeed Polonized (check here). Or perhaps there is something I forgot? I'd be happy if you provided me with a diff showing my support for moving this article to Mołodeczno...
  3. As my views are currently supported by the majority of users to take part in this debate (take a look here), I see no need to change anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it you to propose a move now, despite the consensus? If it is so, then why should I try to convince you when it is actually you who should try to convince me - and those who opposed your option?
  4. It was me to ask for protection of this page and I assure you I would ask for the same even if there was consensus to move it anywhere. My protection request was not because the majority of Wikipedians supported the views I share, but because there was a revert war and this article was being moved back and forth. This I find disruptive and this I wanted to stop - apparently it worked. //Halibutt 20:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. My dear Halibutt, contrary to your assertions, the editors above voted not to keep the article at its heavily Polonized spelling with all the diacritics and little dots you are so fond of. They voted not to move it to its Russian name, which is a quite different thing, don't you agree? Therefore, the above vote, rigged as it was, has no direct bearing to the present discussion. You still fail to provide evidence supporting the use of diacritics and little dots to render Cyrillic spellings in this English-language Wikipedia. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Then feel free to start a proper voting procedure and let's see where it gets us. It's as easy as that. //Halibutt 14:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Resolve -> Maladzechna regardless

It has now been finally agreed at WP:CYR that Lacinka is no longer to be used as a scheme for titling Belarusian articles, and do expect mass moval to their tranliterated variants. So WRT to the above discussion it is now irrelevant what conclusion you people arrive at. --Kuban Cossack 09:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No way. It seems you can't live a minute without enforcing your russian chauvinistic intentions. It doesn't seem in any way that there is consensus there. FIRST reach consensus and then say that something is irrelevant. --Monk 09:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry monk, but you had a month to come up with opposition, All this time my post was on Portal:Belarus. Mass moval of artiles already began. I can't be blamed that I did warn anybody, and please hold off the insults. --Kuban Cossack 09:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Was there a voting somewhere or something? //Halibutt 14:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Well there was universal consensus based on the people involved. So in such a case keeping it as Maładečna is a violation on WP:CYR, an official wiki policy. --Kuban Cossack 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
And moving it out would be a violation of the universal consensus reached above... But perhaps there's a better way to solve the issue than vote-fight? The following day one might start a voting at Talk:Romanization on the applicability of Russian transcryption of non-Russian names and then use it as a blanket to fight his or hers opponents in meritorical debates - but would it be fair? And would wiki benefit from that? //Halibutt 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Above was as quoted by the admin no consensus to move it to Molodechno. Not to Maladzechna also the transliteration method is written for Belarusian not Russian and the reasoning is outlined clearely on WP:CYR (if you cared to read it there). Also why are you so concerned? --Kuban Cossack 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Because I believe such controversial moves should be done by proper voting on requested moves rather than by some sneaky voting not even mentioning the case and held on a completely unrelated page - yet used as a cover to push someone's POV. Do it properly and I might support the move, as it's all the same for me what is the title of this article. As long as it's not in Chinese all is fine. //Halibutt 18:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand I have no idea why is my attempt at compromise reverted on sight. Is it really so crucial that we had only one name here and pretended there's no other way to put it down, whereas there are two? Not to mention Irpen's double standards about "Liberation"... //Halibutt 04:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Halibutt, but there is only one name for the city, the official name recongnised by the Republic of Belarus and all corresponding western press and there is a name which a narrow group is trying to push in. And you are helping them, talk about double standards.--Kuban Cossack 10:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate what are those double standards? Preferably with links and diffs. Thank you in advance. --Irpen 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned that above. You are willing to add that bizarre "Soviet liberation" everywhere claiming it's NPOV as long as it's found in sources. However, when you spotted a sourced remark that the place was liberated from the Soviets by the Poles, what you did? You of course modified it to get rid of the "liberation" remark - and added it later in the text, to show that only the Soviet Union could truly liberate anyone. Want me to cite diffs and links as well, or is the description enough? If that's not double standards then what is it? Perhaps you're acting in good faith, but that does not stop you from applying double standards and pushing a pro-Soviet POV. //Halibutt 10:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Nyah, I'll add the diffs as well:
Yes, think of the veterans that live in the city and their descendents...--Kuban Cossack 11:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Then think of the previous inhabitants of the place who were "liberated" by the Red Army. This involved "liberation" from the German occupation, but also "liberation" from their wrist watches, "liberation" from their property and finally "liberation" from their motherland, as most of them were instantly expelled - or re-patriated, as the Commies used to call the act of deportation or expulsion. Does it change a single thing in what words should we use here?
And if that indeed is a relevant and valid argument, then think of the local population who suffered from 123 years of Russian yoke before they were finally "liberated" by the Polish Army. How's that different from the case of the vets you mention? //Halibutt 15:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt has this feature of repeatedly bringing up things already refuted. Typical one is to cite irrelevant Volgograd/Battle of Stalingrad to justify other name's Polonization, despite other cities, unlike Stalingrad, were never actually renamed (see eg talk:Battle of Wilno). This is another strawman he keeps bringing up from talk page to talk page, that I somehow, support liberate when it relates to the Russian forces and oppose it elsewhere. This was explained too. He puts things in my mouth as if I said them somewhere and then provided proof that my edits disagree with them. Of course they don't because what I said was totally different and Halibutt knows that. I said repeatedly that in the context of the 20th century liberate is usable only when speaking of driving out the Nazi forces. Thus, "liberation from Nazis" is a full term and, just liberation would implicitly imply the same in the WW2 context. OTOH, I never used "liberation" in the context of, say, 1939 occupation, despite it was a Russian advance or in the PUW context, even when it was a Ukrainian advance (will give some thought to the latter issue). I also explained the reason why the L term is applicable in this particular context (WW2). It is because it is a term widely used in the mainstream literature on the subject, including most respected books and encyclopedias, such as Britannica and Columbia. Halibutt's contention that the most respected sources are not NPOV while he is cannot be taken seriously. Britannica has an NPOV policy clearly and any respected historian who writes non-neutrally would immediately undermine his credibility within the academic community. If Halibutt wants to continue going around in circles, I request he brings up some new points at last. --Irpen 20:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said you said things you mention above. I merely pointed to the fact that you act that way. Whether you would word it that way or not would be a different matter. Anyway, Irpen's remarks above have already been responded to and refuted in at least three different places, no need to repeat my arguments. The fact remains that double standards have been applied to this article by Irpen to conform with what he supports and what he does not. He stated loudly, clearly and repeatedly that in the context of the 20th century liberate is usable only when speaking of driving out the Nazi forces - and decided to impose that usage on the entire wiki so that it better suited his POV. //Halibutt 07:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way did I act, dearest Halibutt? I only used the L-word for the 20th century in relation to clearing the territory from the Nazis (be it at the Western or the Eastern Front). It has nothing to do with whose advance it was, Soviet, American, Polish or British. Nowhere did I use the term for '39, for PSW or the PUW, (although I will give the PUW case some consideration). where are the double standards here? Many nations could and did liberate Europe from the Nazi occupation. This term in the context is accepted in the major historiography, all major encyclopedias and the major books on the subject. The usage of this term is nowhere near as accepted for the Polish advance to the East in '19-20 and you know it fully well. Nowhere I used the term for other events. So, reread the WP:PA, WP:AGF and stop trolling. --Irpen 02:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

In the way I described above. No need to repeat myself. //Halibutt 12:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Move-protected

Per a request by User:Halibutt at WP:RfPP the page has been protected from moves in an attempt to prevent further move-warring on this article. Please use the talk page to discuss the matter further, and once you have reached agreement, let me know or post a request for unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

All right now, as my attempt at some compromise solution has been reverted repeatedly by Kuban Kazak and Irpen, I encourage those editors to start a proper move procedure. Until then the name of the article will be mentioned in the first line, along with the name proposed them. WP:STYLE states clearly that the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence., which seems logical. It is also logical to follow the other rule: The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes. In any case those users are free to start a proper procedure, change the article's title and then update the header. //Halibutt 12:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for move back to Maladzechna

WP:CYR for Belarusian clearely states:

  1. Where there exists an established English spelling, the established English spelling is to be used.
  2. Otherwise, the BGN/PCGN for Belarusian language system (1979) is to be used.
  3. The renderings of the Belarusian geographical names in the intra-national Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script may be additionally included, if sufficiently different from the BGN/PCGN version. The suggested form of writing it down, in absence of template would be: ...(BelarusianGeoNameBGNed, IOT2000: BelarusianGeoNameIOT2000ed)...
  4. Other systems and orthographies, e.g., ISO 9, GOST 1983 and derivatives, Lacinka are not to be used.

Hence the fact that neither Britannica or any other ecyclopedia use Maładečna or the google test which is convincing enough IMO, there could only be one resolve a move to Maladzechna. --Kuban Cossack 20:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. The request has been considered, and no consensus has been found.
  2. WP:CYR has not been approved. --KPbIC 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Krys, please no weasel arguments. Just say it loud and clear whether you see the usage of Lacinka in Wikipedia as the most appropriate tranlslit from original BE-language (with reasons perhaps) despite the standard translit rules exist or that you take the position opposite of that by Kuban kazak whatever the position of the latter is regardless of the merit.

Kazak, just hold it a little bit. Don't give it a second fight over nothing and if you can't wait, file the article RfC. --Irpen 06:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:CYR by itself has to be discussed, and approved. Kuban kazak cannot argue in favor for the page move based on something which by itself has questionable value. Moreover, at the time of the previous discussion, WP:CYR was calling for Lacinka usage. After the failure of the previous moving proposal, Kuban has modified WP:CYR and now he is back here, referencing to his home-made WP:CYR rule, as the reason for the page move. This is a cheap play.
Please don't use bullshit to justify, if you read the talk page of WP:CYR the question at hand was discussed at length. If you want an admin's viewpoint get it, but the modification of WP:CYR was not done solely by me and it was done fully legally with no violation of any wikirules. Lacinka was not to be put into wiki in the first place. --Kuban Cossack 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Howeveer, the previous time Kuban kazak was advocating for a move to "Molodechno", now he proposes to move it to "Maladzechna", which is a different proposal, thus it deserves to be considered. --KPbIC 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes begause Molodechno is what Britannica uses. Previously that has always been a template for naming. --Kuban Cossack 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Krys, you moved from Maladzechna back to the Lacinka name as well. I ask you one more time to please care to state your argumets for Lacinka as opposed to the usual translit from BE. --Irpen 07:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(If you care to know, Kuban has been moving this page 5(!) times: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Is it normal practice? or someone is obsessed with the move?)
Irpen, you wrote "as opposed to the usual translit from BE". So, what is the usual translit?
The official policy WP:NC does not call for any specific rules for Belarusian language. For cities, it recommends to conside as a guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). For non-major cities, like Maładečna, the guidelines are: "All other settlements are named by national rules". The national rules in Belarus are outlined in Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script (also [11]). Apply the rules, and tell us what you get. --KPbIC 07:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If one reads history then he will find that originally the article was named Maladzechna, before this edit [12]. In fact it was Monk who introduced Lacinka into wiki, with no discussion or consensus. However even he participated in WP:CYR's discussion about Lacinka's eradication. You cannont break wiki rules, even if it means your russophobic crusade is to permanentely end --Kuban Cossack 08:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
KK, how about rewriting the above comment - this time without personal remarks? As I already said, I'm neutral on this one as all versions seem equally fine to me. But it's easier to support people who stay civil. BTW, what exactly is the problem with two different names used in Belarusian? //Halibutt 17:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion on the talk page of WP:CYR it is clearely laid out for everybody's eyes. The logic could not be more clear. Monk introduced an archaic system to deliberately make it more widespread, forgetting that WP:Point exists. A few months ago, the conflict with original naming war is what began for me to fully have the Lacinka banned from titles. I found quite a lot of support from other users. The evidence could not be more obvious. However it is the arrogance and stubborness of some users that continue to appall me, particulary since they could not muster any CONSTRUCTIVE arguments to keep Lacinka. I think the evidence on talk page speaks for itself. Please it makes a good read. --Kuban Cossack 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
However, no wiki rule gives you the right to call your opponents names. And the comment above does not answer my question: why are there two Belarusian names in use (I mean cyrillic Belarusian). //Halibutt 08:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Both words Маладечна and Маладзечна exist. However, Маладзечна is currently an official name in BE-lang. According to this, the other cyrillic form МАЛАДЭЧНА was used before the 20th century and it is possibly a Polonism, the author is not sure. --Irpen 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Halitbutt the issue here is the Belarusian language which has several Grammar sets applicable. Russian also had a similar story and in 1918 some of its grammar was reformed. For Belarusian this took place later. The newer grammar, although it does bring it closer to Russian, is more phonetical and representetive of Belarusian speach. Some of our nationaly conscious Belarusian wikipedians however reject the 1930s reforms and the Maladechna vs MaladZechna is a great example to it. The Z sound IS pronounced in spoken Belarusian but originally there was no grammar point to denote it. The 1930s reform allowed for that to happen. That is the version that is officially used by Minsk, it is the version that all the English language publications use (do a google test if not convinced - about a 5:1 ratio in favour of the -z- version). In any case there is no place for Maładečna. --Kuban Cossack 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, and Kuban kazak: You guys are not listening. (1) According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), non-major cities, like Maładečna are to be named by national rules". (2) For geographic names, the national rules in Belarus are outlined in the Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script. The name proposed by Kuban kazak does not follow these rules.

Also, Irpen, your knowledge of Belarusian seems to be unsufficient. Following the link you provided ([13]) the other cyrillic form МАЛАДЭЧНА has been used since the the beginning of 20th century (not before was you incorrectly understood): "Ад пачатку ХХ стагодзьдзя ў беларускай літаратурнай мове ўсталявалася форма Маладэчна". Howeveer, you are correct in mentioning that the current offical name of the city is Маладзечна. --KPbIC 18:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That was what I understood, but made a mistake by double translation into English. This is all moot, however. The official current name is Маладзечна, which transliterates as Maladzechna according to both official BE translit rules published by the BE gov (linked above at this talk) as well as according to WP-CYR. OTOH, Molodechno is more frequently used in English as well as by EB. This guarantees that the article's name should be one of the two, but not the Lacinka, that has a very fringe following and recognision.
So, Krys, at least stop defending it and realize that your moving it back to Lacinka (originally imposed on this article by Monk unilaterally and without discussion), does not look right especially since this was part of your Kazak-stalking spree. Now, that we are discussing it, let's only discuss which of the Maladzechna/Molodechno is better. In lack of consensus between the two, let's move it to the national name (despite Russian also being official in BE and despite the Russified name established itself in English an in EB. But I have yet to see anyone clearly standing up arguing for the Lacinka version. If you don't have any arguments for it, don't move it into this name just to make a point or aggravate the opponent. --Irpen 20:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC) --

Following WP:FAITH, I assume you are unintentionally keep making a wrong claim that "the official current name Маладзечна transliterates as Maladzechna according to official BE translit rules published by the BE gov" --KPbIC 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Official would be Maladziеčna. Maladzechna comes from BGN/PCGN, which is the version that ALL of the foreign English publications use. --Kuban Cossack 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The official transliteration is correct. But, the claim that "ALL of the foreign English publications use BGN/PCGN" is obviously wrong. For example, an overwhelming number of publications uses "Kyiv" as the name of Ukrainian capital. How would you explain that? --KPbIC 22:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Google book: Kyiv - 6180; Kiev - 115000; Owerwhelming indeed, provided you correct your obvious typo. --Kuban Cossack 22:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Books are the slowest to adjust. In scientific publications published since 2000: Kyiv - 5,830 vs. Kiev - 15,800; not yet overwhelming, but already significant. For comparison, in scientific publications published before 1990: Kyiv - 184 vs. Kiev - 12,600.
Still, there are different transliteration systems used in English publications. BGN/PCGN is one of them. For Ukrainian, see Romanization of Ukrainian for the other systems. Also, I've never said that BGN/PCGN is something really bad. As with any system, there are some pros and cons. And, I noticed, while advocating for BGN/PCGN, even you don't like some of BGN/PCGN rules.
Bottom line, for Belarusian, the national transliteration system for geographic names have been agreed by such authorities as the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Culture, the Kolas Language Institute of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences, and the Land, Geodesy, and Cartography State Committee ([14]). Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names), this is the system to follow. --KPbIC 00:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv issue is totally irrelevant here since, as the placename is rather well-known to English speakers, it is decided based on the common usage, so please don't spend time on discussing the irrelevant issues.

Here, we have two issues. The first one is whether the name should be based on the common usage in English or on the translit.

  • If we go by the common usage, the choice is clear and it is Molodechno, and even the EB uses it. The only argument here is that unlike Kiev or Moscow, the English name of the subject of this article is not exactly a household name in the English-speaking world. Is the usage wide enough to go by usage rather than the national name is unclear to me. In any case, it is preferable to the Lacinka, which is here for no good reason at all.
  • If we go by translit,
    • first of all, it seems clear to me that the translit should be based on the official Маладзечна rather than archaic Маладэчна.
    • The choice between two translits is less clear-cut as there is a good argument for each. One would give us Maladzechna and the other would give Maladziečna. I really do not know which one is better.

As such, we have some reasonable arguments to choose between the following three names: Molodechno (common usage argument), and Maladzechna/Maladziečna (choice between two tranlits). I am fine with any of them, but deciding which one is best, may take weeks or months for us all.

OTOH, it is clear, as there are no serious arguments for Lacinka name, that the current version is simply untenable and should not be used even for an extra day.

As such, I propose the following:

  1. We draw a one week long straw-poll to decide between these three names.
  2. By a simple majority, we decide which of the names to move article from the current untenable name
  3. The move above is not acceptable as a permanent solution since WP is ruled by some reasonable proximity of consensus rather than a simple majority. We discuss between those three version until we reach some conclusion and/or ammend the policy and then move the article again (or not) depending on the outcome.

The current name is worse than any of the three for the reasons explained and if anyone disagrees, s/he should bring up the arguments for Lacinka as opposed to both the translit and common usage solutions. --Irpen 01:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I propose, we follow the guidelines in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). It would be nice if you clearly state reasons not to follow the guidelines.
Second, the name Maladziečna should be included in the survey per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names).
Third, the current name, Maładečna has to be included as one of the options. One survey has been previous conducted, and no consensus has been found on the move from the current name. Your opinion that such name is unacceptable has been already expressed on this talk page and elsewhere. The survey is to be conducted to learn opinions of the other involved editors.
Fourth, one week is acceptable.
Finally, we move the article, once there is WP:CONSENSUS. --KPbIC 02:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Krys, I brought the arguments in favor of three names: Molodechno, Maladzechna, Maladziečna and proposed a straw poll between them. This does not contradict WP:NC{CN) which call for selecting between the common usage, national rules and case by case excemptions. Lacinka is not an accepted national rule and I simply propose that we decide on whether to go by common usage or by the translit rules, and, in the latter case, decide between such rules.

If you want to include the Lacinka name in the straw poll, care to explain why this one might be preferable because Lacinka is nowhere in this picture. So far, no one provided any arguments for this name and the only reason why the article is under the current name, is that it was moved here by Monk, without discussion at all, and this editor seems to have and agenda to promote Lacinka. The reason why it is still here is that you and Halibutt were moving it back here for the reasons of which I already expressed my opinion. --Irpen 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There are many transliteration systems. Why do you ignore the recommendation by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)), which recommends to use the national rules, and want to use something else?
Maładečna is the name of the city in Łacinka, which is a Latin-based alphabet, which by construction does not need transiteration into Latin, and this is a significant advantage. In fact, some Slavic nations has switched from Cyrillic to Latin. It's their choice, if they want it, there is no problem with me. Moreover, I support there right for such choice. --KPbIC 02:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, FYI, BE-lang uses Cyryllic, and if you have any doubt, check Britannica and any other respectable source, written by respectable neutral scholars. As such, we are looking for the rules of transliteration. Lacinka, is not a rule of transliteration. Lacinka is a fringe version of the Belarusian script. Wikipedia is not the vehicle to promote some scripts to someone's liking.

Please bring up any evidence of Lacinka's reasonable acceptance and somehow, prove that all respectable sources that claim the BE-lang's script is a Cyrillic one are all wrong. After that, we can include Lacinka names, but not as suggested rule of Transliteration, but as an accepted script in BE-lang. Until then, we are discussing only between the translit systems (which Lacinka isn't) or a common usage name. --Irpen 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you asked me why Lacinka might be preferable, and I gave you one reason. Monkbel or somebody else may give you more.
I think you do have problems with accepting WP:CONSENSUS, and lacking clear understanding of WP:POLLS, WP:STRAW. Surveys are conducted to learn positions of involved parties, to find consensus if such exists. If wikicommunity think that Maładečna is unacceptable, then we will learn this out. That's it. This is all what surveys are about. --KPbIC 03:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Krys, the one reason you give is built on the logical fallacy. You claim that it is good to use Lacinka because it is inherently Latin and does not require transliteration, but you fail to address the problem which is emphasized to you so many times. This problem is that Lacinka has no reasonable acceptance whatsoever. And please don't deflect the discussion into patronizing talk about what's a consensus and what's a poll. We all know that. There is also WP:Dick which makes a useful reading. --Irpen 03:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially for the author of the post, who likes to wikilawyer others without abiding by the policies himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.221.193 (talk • contribs) .

The unsigned entry above really does not call for an answer. It would be interesting though to get to the bottom of this. --Irpen 03:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Misconceptions

  • The official Belarusian form of the name is "Маладзечна" with stress on the third syllable. At least it was in 2003 Belarusian encyclopedical manual on geography.
    • All (historical but not too obscure) alternatives should go into something like subsection "Names".
  • What currently goes under the name of Belarusian Lacinka isn't in any way standard. It's just sort of convention used by promoters and supporters of writing down Belarusian text in Latin script. It isn't recognised or supported by any significant international or even intra-national institution. Contrary to what supporters believe, it isn't readily comprehendable by somebody not familiar with the very specific orthographical conventions accompanying it's use (notably, the whole issue of L,L/, the so called "belarusian L/" etc.)
    • As a obvious corollary, the rendering in Belarusian Lacinka per se doesn't constitute valid addition to, e.g., names subsection.
  • Use of the state-standardised Instruction on transliteration (I'll refer to it as IOT2000 here):
    • does not obligate anybody producing cartographical goods not in the Belarus
    • isn't recommended by UN working group on romanisations
    • has to render from the "modern, correct, officially approved form", anyway
  • For nearly 30 years, there exists a Anglophone-oriented BGN/PCGN romanisation system for Belarusian language (1979)

I see no harm in mentioning the rendering in the IOT2000 as the likely to be met form, sufficiently different from the BGN -- just like I'd proposed in the Cyrillic namings. E.g., Maladzyechna (IOT2000: Maladziec^na) However, the primary form of the name (and name of the main article) should be the official Belarusian form, rendered in the BGN/PCGN. Everything else seems to be just a non-issue and opinion-pushing. ---Yury Tarasievich 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yury, I looked for the most preferable naming convention for Belarusian among involved Belarusian wikipeadians, and I failed to see the clear consensus. Monkbel and Zlobny advocate for Lacinka ([15], [16]), Rydel is against Lacinka, but he didn't specify the system he favors, Czalex advocates for the official national system ([17]), and you prefer BGN/PCGN. I noticed, you are quite involved in the Belarusian language issues (as contrary to anything else, like politics or sport), and it looks like you know the topic well. But you should probably work with the other Belarusians to reach some compromise.
From the formal point of view, please note that Mikkalai has proposed to use the national rules for places with no established name ([18]). He was supported, including by Alex Bakharev ([19], [20]) who introduced the proposal into the official guidelines Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). --KPbIC 04:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Well, and why should I, or anybody, ever care about the "Latsinka"? Practically everything there is to know about it is in Belarusian Latin alphabet. And in the context of naming it seems to be a very obvious non-issue.
I understand that the phenomenon has some supporters -- one of them just scattered couple of moot "Latsinka" enhancements over several articles. So what? It isn't always possible to cater to every whim and nuance.
Then, did you read my entry, I mean -- completely? It's all there, together with why everything excepting the BGN/PCGN wouldn't fly here, in English-language WP.
Look closer at those supposed rules in "City names". Those are no rules, those are just the initial proposal -- and unfortunately, quite self-defeating, at that. Just exactly what are the "established English renderings"? What's the authoritative source on such data? In fact, I doubt there are any (excepting, possibly, the non-issue of Minsk). This entry could be stricken safely, I guess.
Then, why "national", exactly? Why not English/Anglophone? And what, exactly, goes under "national" dub? Isn't the BGN/PCGN for Belarusian "national"? E.g., the "Latsinka" isn't. :))
Also, consult the IOT2000 attentively. See why it is no use for "real Belarusians" :)) (the paragraph on normative source of text). Anyway, it's very specifically about geo names -- what about propers?
And the entry on "possible exceptions" -- well, it just defeats all the preceding rules.
Finally, to be frank, my supposedly "fellow" Belarusian wikipedians turned out to be quite a neo-totalitarian bunch. If you'd followed the recent story of "voting the rules for spellings" in BE:WP, then you know one (shameful) example of what I'm talking about. Compromise?? Ho-ho-ho. ---Yury Tarasievich 14:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


Let's try once again

  • There are following categories of Belarusian Cyrillic words needing some sort of Romanisation:
  1. Geographical names
  2. Other kinds of proper names
  3. Non-names, needing introduction in the un-translated form
  • There exist following major systems to achieve Romanisation of Belarusian:
  1. GOSTs of all sorts
"round-trip" systems
  1. Instruction on transliteration...(2000) which is also incorrectly named (it is not called so) by some folks here as "(Belarusian) National Romanisation System"
  2. ISO 9
  3. "Washington (library?) system" (I don't remember the correct name -- visually, in the Belarusian text the system uses subset of 26 basic letters plus lots of % and ' signs)
"non-round" trip systems
  1. "Belarusian Latsinka"
  2. BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian
  • One can merit the systems by following criteria:
  1. being well-established (used traditionally)
  2. being widely-adopted (used widely)
  3. being officially adopted (added by KPbIC)
  4. being easily readable (by Anglo-phone reader)
  5. being easily writable (with the common denominator being the English keyboard)
  6. fair to the Belarusian pronounciation (as read by by Anglo-phone reader)
  • Now, we may dispense with the obsolete (Soviet era) GOSTs at once.

We may ignore the "round-trip" characteristic here in WP, as its intended use is quite specific, and redundant here in WP -- the true original word may and almost always is included.

For the sake of Polit-Correctness I've allowed for the "Latsinka" to be included here, and even under the dub of "major" systems, but it really does not even merit mentioning, because:

it's really not translit but a semi-orthographical system -- the L,L/ letters!
not well-established -- never codified, several significantly different variants through the history, currently promoted convention is by no means older than 1941.
not widely-adopted -- used by small groups always, short-timedly, always either circumstantially, or enforcedly, or as a vehicle of promotion of certain ideas.
  • Now, for the rough comparison:
well-establ. wide-adopt. officially-adopt. easily-read. easily-writ. fair pronounc.
ISO 9 ++ + ++ - - --
IOT2000 - - + - - -
Wash. - -/+ (sugg. by User:KPbIC) - -- + --
BGN/PCGN + + + + + +/- (better so)

I can explain each mark if necessary. Latsinka, if included would merit same as IOT2000, being marginally worse in "being fair to Belarusian pronounciation" (because of originating from the Polish perception of Belarusian pron., hence all L/ and other Polish letters "forcibly assigned" to the Belarusian sounds plus the invented letter(s))

  • Now, we have a three kinds of names (see before). Two systems (ISO 9, Wash.) are "defined" (or positioned) for every kind of word. IOT2000 is for geographicals only. BGN seems to be developed primarily for geographicals but is not limited to them.
  • Additionally, IOT2000 has the "perk" of currently being the mandatory for the Belarus-originating cartographical production, so may be encountered.
  • The issue of the established English spellings for the Belarusian names may well be a non-issue now, and not a primary entry, at least. There didn't exist much of a specifically Belarusian-to-English prior to 1991, and, anyway, Anglo-phone readers are well used to encounter the un-familiar spellings nowadays.
  • So, summing up, the general rules for the Belarusian Cyrillics namings of all kinds would read like:
  1. Primary rendering is to be from the normative Belarusian form in BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian
    1. Possible additional rendering in Instruction on transliteration...(2000) may be added for geographical names only.
The suggested form of writing it down: BGNform (IOT2000:IOT2000form)
  1. Exceptions for the well-established Belarusian-to-English forms (Christian names?) are allowed (preferrably with prior discussion)
  2. Renderings of Russian forms of Belarusian words are acceptable as an additional resources (redirects, entries in articles' sub-sections on names etc.)

Well, what do you think? ---Yury Tarasievich 14:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Yura, please check Romanization of Belarusian. You rated ISO-9 by "++" and "+" for well-established and widely-adopted criteria. And you gave "-" and "-" by the same two criteria to IOT2000. Actually, they are quite similar; they both transliterate "ч" as "č", "ш" as "š", for example. You also gave "++" to ISO-9 for official acceptance, but this ISO standard in voluntary and is not backed by anyone. In fact, I've never seen ISO-9 been used anywhere. Contrary, IOT2000 is backed by the government.
Also, IOT2000 is the youngest, and BGN/PCGN is the oldest. Thus, naturally, one is better established than the other. But also naturally someone may claim that the developers of the younger system improved upon the older system, thus younger one is better.
At the end, none of the systems is clearly better than the other. Still, we need to choose one. And I'm not so against BGN/PCGN. Just, I think the government of you country has developed a system specifically for geographic names and for that I would say the system is the most reasonable to use. (It should probably be named as IOT, or BIOT, not IOT2000, as this is only one edition of the instructions). For wikipedia, it’s what it’s written in the guidelines. (Which may be changes if there is a need, but is there really a need?). --KPbIC 01:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've given ISO 9 many + on widely- and officially- adoption because it's ISO standard (international) AND adopted into the national standard nomenclatures, both Russian and Belarusian (bit of uncertainty here, didn't see the decree) -- replacing GOSTs.
The IOT2000 is intra-national, and is not even a standard, just an instruction by Council of Ministers. By its own definition it's targeting a narrow (on Belarusian teritory only) audience and scope of products (geographical). IOT2000 succeedes about two (? one at least) analogous, but different, post-1992 instructions. That's why I'm giving it a year qualifier.
Latsinka is neither a translit nor a transcript system, but (semi-)orthography, covering under the dub several different alphabets. That's why I've excluded it.
Now, "youngest" (and changing a lot too) talks exactly against the system. Now, ISO 9 dates back to 1968 (although then it was different). BTW, it had GOST counterpart even then. Some of the parts of BGN tables dates back to 1963, I believe. The Belarusian BGN dates back to 1979. Accepted by major US and UK organisations, and having all perks of being Anglo-phone friendly. What else to seek here?? ---Yury Tarasievich 08:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yury. Comparing ISO-9 vs. IOT-2000, it's my understanding that ISO-9 is a voluntary standard, that is nobody is required to follow it. And, in fact, as far as I know nobody follows it for Belarusian language. Contrary, IOT2000 is a mandatory standard, with a limited mandatory scope, which you have correctly specified.
Personally, I don't share the view that "the older the better".
Basically, there are two criteria: (1) Anglophone friendly, and (2) Fair to native language. And all standards are developed to match these criterias. I don't think the Belarusian government was intentionally developing a standard to be unfriendly to Anglophone readers. It may be that they put higher weight on the fairness to the native language. Contrary, BGN may be too friendly at the cost of providing worse match with the native language. ----KPbIC 20:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, did you read the rationale for the IOT2000? The working group on IOT2000 didn't care squat for the English or any other *readers*. Their standard was to be, primarily, univocal (is that the word? un-ambigous relation between cyr letters and lat combos and back) and is, effectively, quite an unneeded exercise in what the ISO 9 already does. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, as we aren't producing cartography goods on the territory of Belarus, we are free to ignore IOT2000, too :)) ---Yury Tarasievich 21:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Krys, you forgot to elaborate on the reasons why you favor Lacinka so much that you even moved the article to it and twice. Actually moving it twice to Lacinka is the only thing you've done to the article. So much about your calling correction of names by others when not accompanied by the article's development elsewhere as trolling, a very strong word, while I agree that such mere corrections are usually annoying.

Many people, including Yury above, explained here why the Lacinka version is unacceptable for the title as per any logic. Or are you changing your mind now in connection with Lacinka's being preferable? --Irpen 04:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, recall the initial discussion. You were reverting moves by others (not here, in general) claiming it should be discussed first. (And you still do). This was in part the reason for my initial revert. Then the discussion started (good thing!). Kuban proposed a move to Molodechno (which is Russian-based spelling) and no consensus has been reached. Then I was out, but Girla and Kuban were trying to move it without consensus, and the page got locked. That's the summary. --KPbIC

I would like to resurrect my proposal stated earlier. The discussion on which name to use may last for weeks and may require the revision of NC. There is no reason why the article should sit under the current untenable and indefensible name. I suggest a quick poll (with each editor being allowed to vote support/oppose for each choice and support of multiple versions being allowed) between all the reasonable names that includes every accepted translit suggested by Yury. For the compeletenes, I propose to add the common usage version (Molodechno) since it is used even in EB. Based on simple majority, we will move the article to the most favored version) and when the consensus appears later, we move it further (or not). The only reason why I propose this course is to avoid the article being under a clearly untenable name as even the mover to the name fails to bring any arguments to its favor and the reason of the moves are totally different and have nothing to do with the merit of the names. --Irpen 03:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, we go by the rules. You were claiming that Lacinka should not be listed as an option for a survey. Nonsense. And, you want it to be moved by majority, not be consensus. Nonsense. Basically, you are against Lacinka, and you don't care what would be the name as long as it's not Lacinka, and you want to manipulate the rules your way at any cost. In my view, such attitude is totally unacceptable. --KPbIC 03:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Correction: I want to exclude Lacinka only because not a single argument in its favor was brought up. If you have any, please list them. This is not the first time I am asking to. --Irpen

Why do you keep repeating that "no single argument was brought up" in support of Lacinka? --KPbIC
Becasue there were none indeed. If I am wrong, please point out any that you can find. --Irpen 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, you are wrong. I’ve provided you an argument (see above), which is appealing to me, but you classified it as logical fallacy (see above), and honestly, that’s your problem, not mine. If you do want to learn more about Lacinka, please get yourself familiar with the list of references provided at Lacinka. Also it would be a good idea to contact Monkbel or Zlobny, who are the Belarusian editors, which support Lacinka. --KPbIC 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
So, why haven't you contacted them yet? But you can't state without giving some statistical data, that two Wikipedians who support Lacinka represent the overall Belarusian position over the issue. Until you cite any support for Lacinka among Belarusians in general, Monk and Zlobny, are just Wikipedians, like you and I, with no special authority over the issue.
Why should I contact Monk and Zlobny at this point? I'm fine. I'm aware of cons and pros of the proposals, which are on the table. You are the one who hate Lacinka, and need help. ("hate"="dislike very much"). --KPbIC 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote above by Krys: "it would be a good idea to contact Monkbel or Zlobny". Quote by the very same user just one paragraph after that: "Why should I contact Monk and Zlobny at this point?". My answer: "I don't know why. It's all your idea". That I "need help" is another idea but thanks I don't. That I "hate" Lacinka is yet another novel view. I neither hate nor dislike it. I don't care for it and I see its usage at Wikipedia unwarranted for the reasons I clearly explained. --Irpen 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on. It would be a good idea for you to contact Monkbel or Zlobny if you want to learn more on Lacinka and its usage for Belarusian language. You kept asking me about the reasons for Lacinka name, I gave you one reason, which is appealing to me, and I told you where to look for references, and I'm telling you the best people around to contact for additional info. That's it. --KPbIC 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the l.f., I cite your earlier statement: "There are many translit systems. Why do you ignore the recommendation by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Belarus, which recommends to use the national rules, and want to use something else? ". This statement is self-contradictory. WP:NC calls for both common usage names and national rules, case by case, and nowhere my position ignores that. We may accept or reject the common usage argument (based on how widespread is the usage at all) and go by the national translit rules (the solution I favor as well), but an uncodified (or codified in several competing ways) Lacinka script of the BE language (not a translit system from BE-lang but a different and practically unused script pushed here by a couple of supporters of it) used only by a small group of enthusiast and unreadable to many literate people within Belarus itself is not a national rule of any sort. So, you put things into my mouth (my alleged rejection of WP:NC) and than attacked the position that I never took in the first place. --Irpen 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The plural form ("national rules") that I have been using was in reference to the set of rules written in the IOT (like rile#1: "а" -> "a", rule#2: "б" -> "b", etc).
I definitely don't want to put "things into your mouth", and to resolve all misunderstandings, could you please clearly write, which English spelling of Маладзечна you support. Thanks, KPbIC 02:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, now you made yourself more clear that by national rules you meant IOT only. Here is my answer. I think IOT is acceptable. I think other translit systems from BE which are consistent and reasonably wide-spread are national too and may be used. National system is not the same as the system prescribed narrowly for the BE state organization specifically for producing cartography goods on the territory of Belarus. I think BGN is also a reasonable alternative to consider. So, I view favorably two translit version Maladziečna (IOT2000) and Maladzechna (BGN/PCGN). I also won't object to the common usage name Molodechno. As I said, we would need to study the extent of the prevailance in order to support going by it. However note, that both translit for BE and common usage are in the guideline you keep pointing to. Lacinka is nowhere in it. So, how do you appeal to the guideline to justify your moving into Lacinka name TWICE is beyond me. --Irpen 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, you position is more clear now. But, please note that BGN/PCGN transliteration you specified (Maladzechna) is incorrect. --KPbIC 08:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As for consensus, I am all for it. However, while we reach the consensus, the article should sit somewhere. Nonsense it to have it sit under the name which is the most opposed one. Reaching the true consensus between all reasonable editors may require weeks or months. The article should be at, at least, reasonable name in the meanwhile rather than the most opposed one.

Generally, when the moving discussion is ongoing, the article should sit under the original location. In fact, in many cases when controversial moves prompted the discussion (or a vote), the location before such unilateral moves were considered (or even forced by admin action) as a default location. By this logic, we should also move it off Lacinka, as the first controversial move ever to this article was made by Monk without any discussion whatsoever. So far for your reverting the "undiscussed" move. You also say that this was "in part" the reason of your move. Other parts by any chance?

I wonder what you will say when some nutjob would start moving Ukrainian placename articles to Drahomanivka names. Some fringe followers of marginal ideas should not be allowed to impose their views by unilateral moves supported by others helping them in moving wars bringing this to the point of the article becoming move protected. That is the summary. That's the main reason why the article is currently under Lacinka.

We clearly have no concensus yet on which of the name is the best. However, there is a consensus that the current name is untenable. If we simply move it back to Maladzechna based on the fact that this initial move was controversial and undiscussed, fine with me as well. I proposed a poll as one way to find a temporary solution. A simple moving it back is another one. Keeping the article under the nonsense name is no solution at all. --Irpen 04:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'm correct. You don't care about article's name, but you want to move it away from Lacinka. I think your view is well understood, and in response let me remind you once again that there was a survey, and there was no consensun on moving from Maładečna (Lacinka) to an alternative name, which was Molodechno (Russian spelling). If it were commonly recognized that anything is better than Lacinka, then the move should have been supported. But it was not. Repeating you personal views day after day, repeating day after day that "no single argument was brought up" in support of Lacinka, while in fact the arguments have been provided (whether you like them or not) does not get us any further. --KPbIC 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You misrepresent me and you do it on purpose and not for the first time. I did not say I don't care what name the article is. I said that I don't know what name is the best but I know what name is the worst and I am not alone at it. And the article sits under this name only because of the unilateral undiscussed move by Monk that was reinforced by two move warriors (you and Halibutt) who moved the article there to make a WP:Point but fail to articulate the reasons to support Lacinka. If you want to vote, fine. We move it to the original name and you submit the WP:RM proposal to the Lacinka name and let's see how much votes it gathers. --Irpen 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a multiplex question. First, from what language to render, BE or RU? Corollary: what to do with the form in another language? Then, render by what system? ---Yury Tarasievich 08:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good questions! The answers are given in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). I understand, you don't like the answers. But let's assume for a moment that we ignore the policy. Then, tomorrow, a new guy, Alex Korolevich shows us, and he claims he does not like the rules too, and he wants to move all articles to ISO-9. Then what should we do? --KPbIC 20:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, those weren't the answers. Those were the indulgences for anybody to do what one pleases. If you didn't notice, your example would perfectly fly under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names). ISO 9 is national (is in national standards' nomenclature) etc. etc. :)) ---Yury Tarasievich 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You didn't really answer should or should not the policy be followed. Also, please, if you have any evidence that this particalar ISO standard, ISO-9 is a part of national standards' nomenclature, please provide a reference. I'm not aware of such fact, but I would be glad to learn it, if it is so. --KPbIC 22:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Krys, just point where and how WP:NC (cn) support Lacinka. --Irpen 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Irpen, at the time of the beginning of this discussion there were no guidelines for Belarusian in WP:NC(CN), and WP:CYR (still under development) was prescribing to use Lacinka. --KPbIC 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Krys, your statement, where you argued for keeping the article in Lacinka was "answers are given in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)". One more time, please point out how and where Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) prescribes to use Lacinka or prescribed to use it at any point of time or withdraw the claim that Maładečna is or was in accordance with WP:NC(cn). Here is the history of the WP:NC(cn) for your convenience. --Irpen 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) Belarusian city names with no established English name should be named according to the national rules, which are given in the Instruction on transliteration...(2000). Maładečna does not follow the instruction, and I have never made a claim that it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KPbIC (talk • contribs)
So why do you argue fot the name then and why did you even move the article there and even twice? Also, that "national rules" means only "Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script" written for state institutions in BE that produce maps is just your hypothesis.
Irpen, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) for Belarusian has been introduced AFTER Kuban and I were moving the article, and AFTER the survey above.
Do you know any other "national rules" for Belarusian geographic names? --KPbIC 08:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Earlier, however, you said that Lacinka is somehow supported by the guideline. I take it that you withdraw that claim. --Irpen 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't. He wants to hang on the "national" but national is too big a word for the phenomenon. Anyway, it's the (semi-)orthography system, not translit. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yura, could you explain how you read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)? --KPbIC 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, one thing I've forgotten to add: notice how BGN/PCGN system raises NO emotional responses -- the most consensus-enabling system of all. :) And if somebody wonders -- I'm supporting it primarily for its simplicity of use, for the whole production-consumption cycle. ---Yury Tarasievich 09:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me too. I say let's move the article to its original location (Maladzechna) and discuss this further. The choice of the final name will then be between several transliterations of Маладзечна and the common usage-based Molodechno. We can than discuss whether the town's name is widely enough known to go by common usage, rather than transliteration, like it is done for Moscow or Kiev. I have access to several media search engines and I will do the legwork and will happily share my findings. If despite Molodechno's prevailance, its usage is still small due to the relative obscurity of the place (which is likely the case), we will finalize which transliteration should be used (and not just for this town). I think this is the most likely outcome.
As of now, I have no particular preference between going by common usage or by translit and I could live with any of those names, but not with the WP-Point name imposed by Monk and enforced by movers who through their unethical activity achieved the move-lock.
If no one objects to moving it to Maladzechna, while the discussion goes on, we can start the multi-choice poll that would determine the most favored and the least favored names. If it determines the article is now under the least favored name, there can be no excuse for it to stay there. We can then either move it to the most favored name or to its original name until we come up with the final consensus choice. Both opitons are fare and fine by me. If the least favored name is not obvious to Krys and he insists on the poll, let's have the poll. --Irpen 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm against the move to "Maladzechna", as it does not follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names).
Please note that this is the third time, you are repeating your proposal. And the third time I'm telling you to follow WP:CONSENSUS. If Maładečna were the least favorable name, then any move away from that name had to be supported. But it wasn't. Please be more constructive. --KPbIC 02:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP:Consensus was violated in the original Monk's move at which the article froze because it was followed by a rabid move war in which you moved the article to WP:Point name twice. If you want to look for the consensus, fine, but the article should be returned to the original name while we are looking for it. There is also clearly a consensus that the current name is unusable. You still insist on keeping the article there. Your approach is totally destructive and disruptive and your calls to others to be constructive seem almost a joke. --Irpen 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Monk's move has not been questioned by anybody for a significant amount of time, thus nothing indicates that he violated WP:Consensus. And now the article is locked for a reason. And the reason is to find consensus name. This is what we are looking for. In fact, your approach, not mine is disruptive as it takes us away from the search for consensus. Instead of looking backward, let's look forward. If you would agree to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) that would be a significant step forward. --KPbIC 08:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Hm, that could be a tactics of sorts. I've seen that before here in WP. One person does the controversial, another, seemingly un-affiliated, defends the "constructive consensus", bogging down the discussion -- in hope everybody gets bored and walks away. Is that so?
The significant step forward would be to refine the ambiguous rules allowing for such waste of time. And what's your definition of "national", anyway? Cyrillics is national. Anything we use in English-language may or may not be national, that's to be decided -- and not by the nationality criteria.
Paradoxically, KPbIC, I feel now that neither you nor those advocates of Latsinka don't know really much on what the Lacinka was and is. :) Read the article, or what?
On ISO 9: I don't feel like digging the indexes now, so just off the top of my head: in Soviet nomenclature "old", 1960s, ISO9 was verbatimly translated to the ГОСТ... (now obsoleted). In Russian nomenclature there is verbatim translation ГОСТ Р ИСО 9-1995 (or -2000?). Like I said before, without checking I'm not sure with Belarusian nomenclature concerned. However, in СТБ, we have here many other ИСО verbatims (ИСО 11146 springs to minds), and usually, the international standards get accepted simultaneously by all the CIS standard bodies.
The big problem I see with IOT2000 is the UN working group on Romanisations does NOT endorse its use [21]. I'm including IOT2000 in my proposal anyway.
BTW, yes, the rendering in the BGN for Belarusian would be "Maladzyechna", not "Maladzechna". Seems somebody confused the (differing) Russian and Belarusian tables at some point.
And let's all dispense with all this Wikilawyering, okay? ---Yury Tarasievich 08:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Side note

Can I just ask that one of Krys's main arguments against Maladzechna was that it was done by me, a non-Belarusian, but seeing as he is not then I think it is not the non-Belarusian that matters but the fact that I am Russian that does. Well rat, Yura is Belarusian, and you are not, and he IS a linguist. However that does not seem to matter to you, so blinded you are by the orange/svidomy/russophobic chauvinistic propaganda (that is exactly what you initially accused me of), that you are now setting double standards for yourself. I wonder how long does one need to be tempered with you, you are however very short of an RfC on user conduct. --Kuban Cossack 11:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I hope you wouldn't object to this moving of your comment into the previous talk, lest we have the row again, instead of peaceful talking about the rules, okay? :) ---Yury Tarasievich 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I respect wikirules (like WP:CYR, WP:POINT amongst a few). However I have one animal (a rat) in mind that certainly knows of such a rules.--Kuban Cossack 12:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rules proposal (with rationale)

Rationale

The current rules on Romanisation of Belarusian names in Wikipedia articles are exceedingly ambiguous, formulated in too vague terms, allowing for all kinds of interpretation and subsequent fruitless discussions. Also, they are out of their place in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Belarusian, as it's, obviously, a place for the rules of disambiguation. And they are in conflict with the rules in WP:CYR#Belarusian (the intended place for such a rules), too.

Background

The preceding discussion on the various Romanisation systems showed that, by sum of the features, the most appropriate system for the English text would be the BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian. There seems to be quite a lot of (geographical) production conforming to it, too.

What currently fills in for the role of "national system", that is, Instruction on transliteration (2000), uses two kinds of Latin diacriticals, and is, seemingly, the only national system for the East Slavonic languages having such a requirement. As such, it clearly loses in easiness of use and comprehendability when presented to English reader, if compared with BGN/PCGN system.

However, as the Instruction on transliteration (2000) is the system, mandatory for the geographical production, if made in Belarus, then it also should not be left out, if dealing with the geographical names, as there may be the cartographical production out there, conforming to its requirements.

Proposal

I'm proposing to:

1. Primary rendering of the Belarusian Cyrillic text is to be made from the normative Belarusian form in BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian.

1.1. For geographical names only the additional rendering in Instruction on transliteration (2000) should be added.

1.1.1. The suggested form of writing it down: BGNform (IOT2000:IOT2000form).

1.1.2. The closest attention should be paid to the correct implementation of the Instruction on transliteration (2000).

2. Exceptions for the well-established Belarusian-to-English forms (e.g., Christian names?) are allowed (preferrably with prior discussion).

3. Renderings of Russian forms of Belarusian words are to be done as an additional resources (redirects, entries in articles' sub-sections on names etc.)

Are there any objections (ambiguity, hardship-of-use, incomprehensibility etc.)? ---Yury Tarasievich 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it is a reasonable compromise. abakharev 06:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --KPbIC 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree but would stress point 1.1, that it is optional, and should be applied, but upon moval with justification that proves a wider use (e.g. Britannica, google books etc) of the BGNform or the Russian equivalent (like Maladzechna/Molodechno), there would be no immediate reversal without prior discussions (and votes). Also in all cases, contemporary Belarusian grammar is used in favour of the archaic version(s) (e.g. Minsk instead of Mensk). Also wrt to point 3 established names such as Vitebsk and Mogilev are not affected in any shape or form.--Kuban Cossack 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: mostly agree but I want a clarity, whether this is about the titles of the articles only or about the usage inside the articles as well? There are three issues regarding city names:

1) article titles; (rule should be very strict)
2) what other names can be allowed in the first line of the article or in a separate section on the name or its etymology; (some reasonably expansive approach should be here: not too many, but some other names are often warranted)
3) usage within the text of that very article as well as of other articles (even more flexibility is warranted for those). For example, usage like "Brzesc {modern Brest)" may be considered in the article related to the PLC or interwar events. Another example: since the majority of the WW2 books written in English use the Grodno operation, this usage in this context should be allowed as done in most literature (most respected WW2 literature even written today, uses the terminology that is not altered compared to the earlier source, see Kharkov (modern usage: Kharkiv), Rumania (modern usage: Romania), etc.)

It is also important to be clear that we are not talking here about the cases of actual name changes, we are just deciding among the same names pronounced/written/transliterated differently in different language. We are not talking about the cases when the cities where actually renamed (eg. in case of Dissa/Vеrknyadzvinsk the usage may be context dependent while the city article should be clearly called by the modern name).

Finally, while the part 3 (emphasizing the Russian names) is harmless, it seems redundant. There is nothing special in Russian per se for Belarus. If the well-established in English name happends to be of the Russian origin, it's not its Russianness but Englishness is what warrants the usage or the mention. Similarly, Russian names as additional entries inside the article, are no different from the Polish and Lithuanian ones. That is if their usage is significant enough, they should be mentioned in the articles not because they are Russian but because they are important for the context. Similarly, "Смаленск, Smalensk" is mentioned in the appropriate section of the Smolensk article. --Irpen 02:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • To Kuban Cossack:
    • On 'established names'. So, how would you define the criterium of "establishness", or, to be precise, what Belarusian names are to be rendered (for the primar article names, if I understand it right) from their Russian equivalent? The background is, that nobody abroad seem to care much nowadays (post-USSR), whether to translit from one language or another. Don't know on Britannica, but take GNC (BGN complement) database or CIA public maps for example. Anyway, isn't the p.3 addressing this issue appropriately?
    • On using 'modern names'. Surely so, that's what 'normative Belarusian form' in the p.1 means.
    • On optionality of p1.1 (using the IOT2000). Yes, I was somewhat inprecise in formulating this. I meant the IOT2000 form should be included in the lead paragraph definition part, as the IOT2000 may be expected to occur in the officially Belarusian-produced geo-info goods. I didn't mean that the primary articles would be named "in" it. See my reply to Irpen, too.
  • To Irpen:
    • On what gets used in article titles. Good point. Though I've meant BGN for Belarusian for the primary names of the articles, I've forgotten to explicitly specify it. Let's wait for Kuban Cossack replies, and then I'll amend the proposal.
    • On what other names can be allowed in the first line. Primarily, IOT2000 rendition of the geographicals, like in p.1.1.1. And additionally?.. I've no idea. Possibly, renditions of modern Russian names and modern Polish names, as these would be the most likely variations to be met? Polish rules seem to be codified, and Russian are well known.
    • On speciality of Russian names in Belarus. Well, in theory, yes, nothing special about them. However, it's a actually existing point of contention and that's what the rules p.3 was about, to de-fuse the irritation of being not possible to navigate by the, say, Vitebsk or Gomel instead of Vitsyebsk or Homyel'. Better formulation of p.3 needed, possibly?
    • On 'usage within the text'. You mean the historical namings, of course. This is somewhat beyond the scope of these rules, quite suitable for the coming proposal for (Belarusian) Namings disambiguation, though. Yes, I think it should be possible to use historical names, provided one does not invent anything and links lead to correct entity article. There doesn't seem to be any explicit rules either pro or contra that. Let's postpone the discussion on this, okay? ---Yury Tarasievich 06:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yury, I suggest taking it slow then. My points about the usage in the articles can be now considered the food for thought only. Since we are dealing with the article titles only, this reduces to two things:

1) default article name is the modern BE name transliterated through BGN/PCGN
2) in case a different name is widely established in English language, that name takes precedence.
Perhaps you misinterpret this proposal somewhat. The proposal is intended to replace WP:CYR#Belarusian, with simultaneous removing of redundant translit-related material from Naming conventions disambiguation (I mean this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)#Belarusian), and is not limited to articles' names only, but is supposed to normalise general use of the Belarusian Cyrillic romanised renditions. So let's keep all of the points there for a while, and simply ignore for now anything not directly related to the romanisation aspect. ---Yury Tarasievich 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This of course would leave us with the issue of quantifying on what establishes the modern name. As most of the places in FSU are rather obscure in the west, the usage should be statistically significant and 25 google hits vs 15 is not a serious argument (while, say, 2.5 million vs 1.5 million might be). However, with the common sense we could resolve the usage issue. Avoidong being a WP:DICK is all it would take. As such, I suggest reducing your proposal to two simple points: BE-name in BGN unless there is established English name different from the BE-BGN form. We can than separately discuss what establishes the evidence of the English form. How about that.

Well, I believe, that to leave such potentially trouble-making material there would be to strike the purpose of the rules from the beginning.
I move that there are no well-established English renditions for the Belarusian names, excepting, possibly, Christian names of ubiquitous use. Historically, there had existed a practice of Romanising the Russian forms of the Belarusian names, both proper and geographical -- and that's why I'm adding the p.3 to the rules. But how you would 'draw the line' here -- beats me. ---Yury Tarasievich 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So, what's your suggestion on definitions of well-established English renditions? ---Yury Tarasievich 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In whatever case, we should request the article move unlock. We can move it to BE-BGN now (which was its pre-Monk name) and if someone wants to bring up the English usage excemption, the burden of proof of Molodechno's being an established name would be on that person. There is no good reason for the current name to be kept simply because some revert-warred to keep it. --Irpen 07:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, but what proof would you need for the Russian form being actually well-established here? Yes, it is, and statistically it is used more frequently -- like any other name in Belarus. So? The problem of fair choosing the source for the namings still stands. Let's not be hasty yet. ---Yury Tarasievich 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yury, my only point is that if someone wants to claim that non-BE name should be used in place of the BE one (usually it would be a Russian-based name), the burden of proof to convince the community would be on that person. In some cases the usage is obvious. In places like Maladzyechna, just a town, not even an Oblast center, it would be more difficult, but perhaps possible. Therefore, I am suggesting to move it to BE-name for now, dump the Lacinka alltogether and, if anyone feels like resurrecting the Molodechno name, let him argue his case.

If you want my thoughts, on what establishes the English usage, I would be happy to share them, but this is an, albeit related, but separate question. The fundamental question is that all placenames are titles by BE name transliterated through BGN with the exception when a different English usage name's being established can be reasonably proven. What consitutes the proof and what's "reasonable" is a separate issue (next rule) and in no way affects the rule 1. Agreed? --Irpen 08:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

For me it's quite okay, just that it keeps the door opened for the interpretations... Okay, I agree, and let's re-formulate the proposal p.1:

1. Primary Romanisation of the Belarusian Cyrillic text is to be made from the normative Belarusian form in BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian. This specifically applies to the names of the primary articles and the primary definitions in the text of the articles.

...and the p.2:

2. Exceptions for the well-established English forms of the names may be allowed, after being reasonably proved in prior discussion.

That's it then? ---Yury Tarasievich 08:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maladzyechna/Archive_1&oldid=1136257119"