Wikipedia talk:Eastern European Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Discussion: Joint project: Polish-Muscovy War (1605-1618) 2 Discussion: "Games with names" proposal 3 Standard naming scheme 4 Help with translations 5 7796 Járacimrman 6 DYK

[edit] Discussion: Joint project: Polish-Muscovy War (1605-1618)

Just letting you know that there are two things that should be adressed before I am comfortable with FACing this: 1) a map 2) Assurance by some Russian editors that Modern_legacy is NPOV - when I wrote it, I expected some 'trouble' and much editing there, but almost nothing was changed. Also, a friend of mine asked how strong would be a resentment to Poles around 1630s? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean how much resentment was still there by 1630s? I can't tell of hand but I will try to see what I can find. --Irpen 06:17, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. My friend and are fans of the 163x fictional universe, and I would go even so far as to say we will have serious say in the future of PLC and Muscovy in that universe. We are considering now some scenarios, and one of the issues we are trying to research is if one of the monarchs died around 1635, how feasible the project of unia troista (Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovy Commonwealth) would be then. Even barring that fictional angle, I personally would love to see more Russian sources added to the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

.... The rest on this is moved to Talk:Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth. --Irpen 21:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Coming back to the PM-war article, I wish I knew more on the topic to contribute, because my feeling is that non-Polish POV is underrepresented (understandably, since Russian editors didn't work much on it), but, unfortunately, I am not prepared to make extensive edits to it right now. regards, --Irpen 22:50, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: "Games with names" proposal

Why not consistently use a place's current name? (Variants can still be given parenthetically at the name's first occurrence in the article.) Ancestors who used a different name or different version of the name are increasingly unlikely to object, as time passes (and they pass away). logologist 01:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not about which name to use (mostly we use current names). This is about what names to list and how in the very first sentence of the article. When the placename is introduced, sometimes a name in other language is given next to it. The problem is that it often gets too crowded and cluttered and we get silly fights with adding, removing or even reordering(!) names. Please check the example I was referring to. All this particular edit did was switched the order of Polish and Russian name for a city in Ukraine. We cannot prevent this from happening. But at least if we accept the rule, that such edits have to come with some other useful additions/improvements, we will get something useful from this. In the previous edit war about Kijow in the first line of Kiev (not the short war from yesterday, but really a hotter one some months ago), this war raging and there was lots of bad blood. It ended very well, though, when Piotrus simply wrote a couple of sentences for the History section about the time of PLC, and introduced Kijow Voivodship in the text. No one objected, BTW. So, this rule will hopefully encourage such edits rather than recent important additions and rearrangements in Kamianets-Podilskyi. --Irpen 03:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following: in the article, mention all alternative names in language alphabetic order in the lead (so, for example, Bielorusian first, then Polish, then Russian, then Ukrainian). Try to use the English name where possible (i.e. when there is a consensus - like with Moscow, Warsaw or Kiev) - this would also be according with Wikipedia:Use English policy. Now, when English name is rarely used and there are similar number of Google hits for two or more competing names, I suggest we do the following: use the name of the country given city belonged to/preson had a nationality of in the contemporary timeframe (like was done with Gdańsk/Danzig dillema, see Talk:Gdansk/Vote) and also mind context (so when reffering to an article from History of Poland series, always mention Polish name in parenthesis, when from History of Ukraine, always mention Ukrainian one in parenthesis, etc.). If somebody feels that other spellings should be used, let them add them in parenthesis, again in the alphabetical order. How does that sound? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think these are all good ideas and we are moving in the right direction. But lets separate the issues. I was mainly talking about how we introduce the name of the city in the first line of the article about the city itself. Often, there are names relevant enough to be there just next to the main name (chosen in accordance with the policy). The best example is Lviv. The Polish name, inserted in the very first line, next to the currently most conventional Ukrainian, is warranted. The problem is where to draw the line in what and how relevant other names have to be in order to be mentioned not just within text but in the first sentence. This threshold is somewhere between Lwiw and Kijow (as I said Kijow is also warranted in the article in the context but not in the first sentence).

My feeling is that a whole bunch of names in the very first sentence causes clutter and, if possible, it is best to have a separate etymology section, just one or two paragraphs down. That's exactly what I did for Kamianets-Podilskyi. Not all editors found this satisfactory. Polish name is already back in the first line (see edit history), and I expect the Russian name will soon follow (see talk there). However, this time, I am talking not about the general policy with names yet, but about the common sense tradition which applies to the first line of the article only. The ethics rule I propose is that inserting/moving names in the first line requires to bring some meaningful (even minimal) improvements to the article in something else too. Please reread my original proposal. I just want to motivate editors to do something for the article if they care about it enough to play with names. As for the essence of Piotr's response, I fully agree, but this is a subject of a related but different discussion. Regards, --Irpen 19:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that History of Kiev is now a separate article and Kijow Voivodship is mentioned there in the context. So, no one really cut Kijow from Kiev, it just moved with the History of Kiev where it undoubtedly belongs. --Irpen 19:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Have you considered setting up a nomenclature box listing variants of a name? logologist 15:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we can consider lots of things, but, again, this is a separate issue for now. Whatever we do, there will be editors willing to challenge names and their order. My consern for now is to request that editors not to do things like [1], [2], [3], [4], or [5] without doing something else for an article too. Please see above. Thanks! --Irpen 07:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that historic-names order becomes practically irrelevant, once they've all been banished to a nomenclature box. I wouldn't connect name-tinkering to substantive article contributions (which I've just made to Kamianets-Podilskyi).

By the way, how do you see the arguments for "Kiev" vs. "Kyiv"? logologist 23:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvement to K.-P. article. I would not consider name tinkering to be a substantive contribution either and the substantive contributions are what we really need. It just want to encourage users to make them. It's just common sense. If one cares so much about the topic, that it even matters, which name goes first and which goes second, do something for an article you care about so much!

Thanks for your interest in my view on Kiev/Kyiv. Please take a look at discussions that include my responces at Talk:Kiev/Archive02 and references thereof. Feel free to contact me for more. Regards, --Irpen 03:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dear, Irpen. Before trying establishing new conventions, rules, etc. read the existing policies carefully and follow them (what you do not do as I pointed you out many times). Concerning the problems you're addressing here: this problem is solved by the exiting policies and gaidelines. And it's solved exactly as proposes Piotrus: use the local (or rather the most close to the local) name in the title of the main article, unless there is well known English name (like Kiev, Moscow, Odessa etc.). Then list alternative names at the begining of the article and make redirects with all alternative names. That's all. Why does not it work? Because you and like-minded users do not follow this simmple guidelines trying to insert Russian-styled names where they do not belong to. Just stop doing it and you'll avoid name-related edit wars.

Concerning the names in different languages. I find it extremely usefull to have them listed at the beginning of the article. It even not a matter of someone's "national pride". This is a matter of convenience. This is the principle of Wikipedia that anybody can add any usefull and corect information. Why do you remove it? Why do you spoil the articles?

This is the principle of Wikipedia that anyone can edit articles whether it is major edits or a small tipo correction. Please do not try to establish your own rules on the top of Wikipedia official policy. This is contrproductive.

What I'll do now,I'll put back the Polish names of Kiev and Chernihiv and I'll see Ghirlandajo blaming me for "Polish Nationalism" ;) --AndriyK 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not trying to establish new conventions. I proposed that several users take a volunteer pledge that will help develop articles faster. You proposal would end up with dozens of names for every city and would make articles look ugly. Additionally, there will be edit warring for the order of the names (should Polish name preceed the Russian on or follow it?).

Right now, if someone adds Polish name to Kiev, someone else will add Lithuanian name, someone else a German name, Greek, etc. This would be just clutter. The name in the first line should only be the name that may be found in English usage, Lwow is an example. The name in the text may be any name that is appropriate in the context, like Kijow Voivodship. In your particular example, if you return the Polish name in the first line of the Kiev and Chernihiv articles, there may be two consequences: it will either be reverted (and if not by me, than by someone else, because there was a consensus, see talk), or someone would add Varshava to Warsaw's first line to make a WP:Point, also only to see it removed. --Irpen 23:30, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is your privat opinion, I do not care about.--AndriyK 23:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Standard naming scheme

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Regional notice boards#A uniform naming scheme. Zocky | picture popups 00:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with translations

I'm currently working on a script intended to create short articles on political parties on a variety of wikipedias simultaneously. However, in order for the technique to work I need help with translations to various languages. If you know any of the languages listed at User:Soman/Lang-Help , then please help by filling in the blanks. Baltic languages includes Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Polish. Thanks, --Soman 12:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7796 Járacimrman

Please note that asteroid 7796 Járacimrman has been proposed to be renamed to 7796 Jaracimrman, dropping the diacritic mark for the Czech personage Jára Cimrman. 132.205.93.148 21:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)