Talk:Eugénie Archipelago

Russia: Physical geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Eugénie Archipelago. Clear consensus to move from the current title, and this option appears to have the most support. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugénie de Montijo Archipelago → Empress Eugenie Archipelago – The current title is not an accurate rendition of the name in English.
The Russian WP uses Архипелаг Императрицы Евгении (Arkipelag Imperatritsy Yevgenii) ([1]), and the French WP (who ought to know) use Archipel de l'impératrice Eugénie ([2]), both of which are rendered "Empress Eugenie Archipelago" in English. So, per WP:TITLE, "Empress Eugenie Archipelago" would be the more appropriate title here. --Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Moonraker12 (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information: The current title appears to be Original Research: it is unclear what the correct name in English actually is.

Neither of the references given are of any assistance; the first is a dead link, while the second doesn’t mention the current name. Whilst a google search gives about 6,000 hits for the current name, on examination they seem primarily to be mirrors of the WP article here. A search of the Geohomes website gives this page, which states “no records found in geonames database, showing wikipedia results”

I have also raised the matter with the original editor (here) but have not yet seen a clear response. Moonraker12 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don't know what the archipelago is best called, but I do know that dropping the accent does not make a suitable English transliteration of the name, suggesting as it does a very wrong pronunciation. All English books that I can find that mention Empress Eugénie retain the accent. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; I hadn’t looked into which spelling of her name was more common in English, I just made an assumption. If the "Eugénie" spelling is more prevalent for her in English I can go with that. Though I’d disagree that omitting the accent makes for a "very wrong pronunciation"; I think English speakers generally know how to pronounce such names regardless of whether they are accented or not (and if they don’t I doubt the accent would help). For example, I don’t think English speakers say this girl's name markedly different to that of the empress. But I’m more concerned about having an accurate translation than a correctly accented one. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't heard of Princess Eugenie of York. But this book suggests that her name is not pronounced at all like Eugénie. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Eugénie Archipelago" per sources [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator's comment It appears that we have clear consensus the current title is improper and that "de Montijo" should be removed, as well as rough consensus that the accent in "Eugénie" should be retained. However, we need more input to decide between two suggested options: "Empress Eugénie Archipelago" and "Eugénie Archipelago".--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Eugénie Archipelago" which seems to be common in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all the above, propose Yevgenii Archipelago. From what I can tell, "Eugénie Archipelago" has not been used in English since 1920, when the Soviet Union deprecated the name. According the Russian Wikipedia, the islands had no name from then until 1994, when the Russian name for the empress was revived. (A modern tourism website for the Vladivostok area still shows no name, calling them simply "Islands in the Peter the Great Gulf".) The only English-language non-WP mirror site that I've seen refer to the islands since then is the GeoNames database, which calls them the Yevgenii Archipelago. (I don't know how to link to the specific results, but you can do a search here.) In the absence of any other post-Soviet English-language sources, I think we should go with the transliteration given by GeoNames. (Note: this name is not unknown in English; see this source from 1947.) Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it in the GeoNames database, except under Arkhipelag Yevgenii, which is the revived Russian name. That translates as Eugenie Archipelago. I don't see why we need to invent a translation when one already exists. There are sources from 1932 and 1967 linked in the google search, and even if they were reprints, the two sources called "1929 international code of signals" and "1931 international code of signals" are clearly printed after 1920. "The international law of bays" also appears to be from 1963. I still think it's better to use the common English-language name found in around 50-60 specialist English-language sources, rather than a Russian name or a name only found in one source per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. DrKiernan (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the sources in which I observed it common are old pre-1920 ones. But the only Yevgenii Archipelago I can find in books is this one. I'd stick with the old names until/unless we find a new name in English sources. Dicklyon (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:It seems this can of worms is still wriggling along, 6 weeks (now) after it was listed.

In reply to Dohn joe; it isn’t "the absence of any other post-Soviet English-language sources" that’s the problem so much as the absence of any sources at all. On that basis even references from a century ago look good, particularly from sources as impeccable as the Royal Asiatic Society and the US Hydrographic Office. As for Russian tourism websites, this one calls them “Empress Eugenie Archipelago” (with an English “e”, in fact) like the title suggested originally, so I don’t know that we can put much store by those.

But I don’t think we should stick with a bad title because we can’t decide which of the better ones is best. So if the RAS and the USHO sources support "Eugénie Archipelago" (including the “e”acute) I can live with that. If more evidence of a better name comes to light we can always re-visit the case. Or if there really is nothing to choose between the various options, maybe someone could toss a coin. I just think the matter needs to be wound up now. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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