387:
rationale for us to do the same, especially when we 100% know that it's wrong. #2, we don't care one bit what the
Russian Knowledge (XXG) uses—they have their own guidelines, and they don't usually match ours. They have their own share of mistakes, too. #3, brief analysis of the google results is normally used to establish common spelling, and in this case the results only show that no common English spelling exists, so we discard them altogether and use other methods (i.e., WP:UE). #4, the only thing that matters is that "zaton" is a part of the proper name; we should deal with it accordingly. If it were a descriptor (used in the title of an article about the part of the Moskva River, to borrow the nominator's example), it's quite possible that we would have dealt with it differently—that is a
180:
380:. This means that we are supposed to follow the convention of the Russian language; i.e., use the official Russian name. The official Russian name does not capitalize "zaton", hence we do not capitalize it either (although we transliterate it per the requirements of that same WP:UE). The word "district" is not a part of the proper name; it is a descriptor establishing the entity type. Whether the descriptor is capitalized or not is determined by the applicable guidelines, previous consensus, or established practices. Since for the Russian districts the "District" descriptor
767:, the Wikipedians, who are supposed to make sure that the things we say match the things the sources say. If the article is moved to a title with "zaton" capitalized, we'll have the lead say something not supported by the source—it's as simple as that. I understand how ignoring this point would be easy and how its impact on the grand scale of things is very minor, but that still doesn't make the approach right. Sacrificing facts, no matter how minor, on the altar of "style" is never right.—
415:
wikiguidelines (and certainly not in favor of their rare extraordinary effects). Could you provide an example of well-established and non-controversial "X y Z"-capitalized place name in
English (and preferably even "X y District" example, and even more preferably the example where the second item would be, originally, hydronym designator)? And, in fact, better to provide many such examples to show that it is a normal practice rather than few exceptions.
91:
64:
638:. The majority of editors there seem to agree that non-capitalized version is not only against the Knowledge (XXG) naming conventions, but against the rules of the Russian language in general where both parts of a complex location name are normally capitalized. Moscow officials are just not literate enough and whether their official documents should override the rules of both Russian and English language, is a question.
33:
623:
101:
660:
or
English), by all means add it, but until the official name is changed, we should be reporting what it actually is, not what we want it to be or what we think it should be. Once you start deciding what is correct and what isn't while disregarding solid evidence at the same time, that's a slippery slope you are on, my friend. —
539:", we'd have this article under "Nogatinsky"—correcting it would be a very wrong thing to do. As long as an explanation is provided or can easily be inferred, there is no problem. I'd point out once again that accuracy/verifiability is more important than the matters of style, which often tend to be arbitrary anyway.—
734:
this ungrammatical (if it indeed turns out to be ungrammatical) variant. The "corrected" version, or the other hand, can only be "verified" by completely ignoring what the primary source says and disregarding the nature of the relation between the primary source and the secondary sources, which makes
582:
This reason is a peculiar effect produced by several guidelines and conventions together (and ignoring the normal rules of both
Russian and English). Perhaps we better should fix those guidelines or interpret them in favour of the English language? As for the transliteration systems, remember that we
371:? Normally, we would look at the name commonly used in English to refer to the concept, and use the capitalization that name uses. In this case, however, no commonly used English name exists—something the nominator does not seem to contest. In absence of a common English name, the policy we follow in
832:
is that "zaton" is spelled with a lower-case "z" (and that it is not typical even in original
Russian)—something that's retained after the guidelines are properly followed. If anything, the current title is more accurate than the proposed one. The stylistic concerns are always a secondary matter and
659:
Seriously, since when is
Knowledge (XXG) in business of correcting the mistakes of others? We are supposed to report the existing state of the matters, not criticize it or mend it. If you find a source discussing the official name and pointing out how it is against the rules of the language (Russian
496:
know 100% which variant is correct/official, so there is no justification whatsoever to depart from it. Even if the original is indeed grammatically wrong, the romanization simply conveys that state. We are not in a position to fix what we think are mistakes in the sources. We are here to report the
446:
On your other point, I do agree that "zaton" in the name of this district is not a designator; it is a part of the proper name. I have already explained why it should not be capitalized—since there is no common
English name for this district, our only choice is to romanize the official Russian name,
871:
but relisting in the hope others will take the time to get involved. So far we just have the two contributors, and we need others to help them solve this. And it's complex. I think I see both valid and invalid arguments on both sides, and on balance support a move. Very interested in other views. I
778:
If we transliterate the name and capitalize it according to normal
English practice, and at the same time give the non-capitalized name in Russian, than we will not sacrifice facts nor the rules of English. Fact is that it is officially named "Нагатинский затон", but it is not a fact that it should
487:
No, of course they don't say that; it is rather obvious :) I've never seen an
English text where capitalization would be altered in a name that is explicitly romanized. Capitalization may occasionally differ when there is a different common English name to match the Russian name, but in those cases
470:
Guidelines seem not to say directly that the "Capitalization choice is always retained during romanization". Non-capitalizing a part of a proper name is not typical in
English. Non-capitalizing before a capitalized descriptor is not typical in utmost degree (could you give examples of such usage?).
694:
you go about fixing what you think is a grammatical error in the source; the point is that you are still trying to fix what you are not supposed to. If the capitalization of the name is officially changed by the Moscow authorities, we will change it here as well. Until then, we are supposed to use
570:
agree that is is not normal capitalization. I only agree that it is not typical, and point out that it is not typical for a good reason. How to transliterate, on the other hand, is indeed a different issue, but I do not know of any romanization/transliteration system which would contain provisions
442:
Once again you are referring to some non-existent "English language naming system" and "general rules of the language". Once again I point out that there is no such system. There are only style guides and the rules Wikipedians have agreed on. Capitalization in particular is strictly a style issue,
386:
On other points: #1, the official name of a place in Moscow is not determined by what the official website uses but by the law on the administrative-territorial divisions of Moscow (which the official website is supposed to follow). That the website uses the spelling which is wrong is not a good
886:
I'd say we should both be whacked for wasting time over the capitalization of one letter, but thanks for getting involved :) Other opinions are indeed needed, because the two of us have reached the impasse. May I ask why you are leaning to support and which portions of our arguments you see as
414:
If a number of Wikipedian guidelines are good one by one, but in combination provide a strange-looking result not fitting into English language naming system, it is not the reason to uphold these guidelines at whatever cost. We should not override the general rules of the language in favor of
391:
and nothing to be surprised about. #5, "zaton" here is not a designator; it is a part of the proper name. The only designator in this title is "District", and it is already capitalized. Note that it is only capitalized because Wikipedians previously agreed that this kind of designators
396:
normally be capitalized; there is no such agreement on making exceptions to the capitalization of parts of proper names just to make them "fit" someone's conception of normalcy, which is what this nomination is trying to do despite all of the policies and guidelines pointing to the
811:
Basically you support the accuracy of guidelines implemention here, rather than the accuracy of facts. If the guidelines produce bad stylistic and grammatical effects without significant positive effects for the real world accuracy, than we better should fix the guidelines.
714:) it is not a reason to translate this ungrammaticality into English and get even more ungrammatical capitalization sequence as a result. Why not just report the name of the district in Russian in the body of the article but name it according to English language rules?
508:
What is not said directly is not obvious. And we can report the exiting state of the matter in the official Russian documents without naming the article contrary to normal English practice. Do you agree that the "X y District" capitalization is not normal in English?
290:
322:
5) And finally, I repeat, it is abnormal for an English proper name to be non-capitalized or to have non-capitalized descriptor (zaton) before capitalized one (District, which is by the way "район" in Russian, and is not capitalized in Russian texts).
488:
no claim is made that the result is a "romanization". Since there is no common English name of this district, we use the romanization of the official name, and if a part of that name is not capitalized, then neither is the romanization.
746:
The reader is supposed to verify it through references, of course. And I suppose the reader is more likely to start figuring out why that is capitalized in so weird way in English rather than to verify the capitalization in Russian.
735:
this approach a textbook definition of original research (and bias!). And if we retain the lower case in Russian, but not in English, that's even worse! How's the reader supposed to figure out why that is and which one is correct?—
426:)? According to hydronym naming scheme it should be fully capitalized, and why there is any sense in treating it differently when a part of the district name, especially when the issue is so small as capitalization, is not clear.
269:, but without success in determining the right approach. Ezhiki's main and quite valid argument is that in the official laws of Moscow the second part of the district's name is spelled in lowercase in Russian language. However:
635:
631:
491:
Regarding what's "typical", I would myself capitalize all parts of proper names if there is no source confirming 100% which variant is correct (in other words, when in doubt, always capitalize). In this case, however, we
377:
f there are too few English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so
833:
at any rate aren't even as bad as you are trying to portray them. As for changing the guidelines, that, of course, is always an option to consider, but it should be discussed using the appropriate venues, not here.—
695:
what the source uses, and the source uses "zaton" with a lower-case "z". Our titles are not supposed to be grammatically correct for the sake of being grammatically correct; they are supposed to represent reality.
533:), but hardly so abnormal to worry about. In this particular case, the capitalization of the original name is not "normal" either—a fact that the romanization also conveys. If the official name were misspelled as "
189:
74:
795:
It is indeed our choice, but one that's dictated by our own guidelines. As I demonstrated above, there is nothing in the guidelines that would support changing the capitalization the way you are suggesting. We
658:
Ah, and of course it is only up to them, the Russian Wikipedians, to mend this great injustice and to make Russia literate once again! We, of course, should follow their guiding light!</sarcasm: -->
279:
948:
550:
So you agree that it is not normal capitalisation sequence. Accuracy/verifiability is relevant to Russian sources and names here. How we transliterate them is a different question.
671:
282:
prefer fully capitalized spelling, while these same cites and other official and non-official cites freely use both capitalized and non-capitalized version, often on the same page
943:
938:
763:
Yes, the reader is supposed to verify it through references, but you are sidetracking the argument—regardless of what the readers do (or are supposed to do), it is
674:
which supports the capitalized version. And when it comes to language issues, I think Russian academic scholars are better experts than Moscow officials.
170:
933:
160:
257:– mostly because "X y Z" (Capitalized - non-capitalized - capitalized) is abnormal capitalization scheme for similar proper names in English.
953:
136:
296:
3) Brief analysis of the google search results gives impression that the capitalized version is more popular both in Russian and English.
928:
447:
in which "zaton" is not capitalized. Capitalization choice is always retained during romanization. Also, just because proper names are
307:. For English hydronyms or port names (unlike Russian ones) the general practice is to capitalize the descriptor in postposition, so
800:
do it anyway, but that would be picking style over accuracy, and you still haven't addressed why that would be a worthy sacrifice.—
422:
than why this particular type of proper name should not be capitalized in English, while proper names are typically capitalized (
132:
114:
69:
44:
913:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
225:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
179:
316:
254:
250:
627:
119:
50:
283:
443:
and in this particular case the style issue interferes with accuracy. In my book, accuracy wins every time!
32:
239:
355:. The current title is a result of (quite unambiguous) application of our own policies and guidelines.
821:
788:
756:
723:
683:
647:
592:
559:
518:
480:
435:
343:
877:
872:
think both contributors also deserve a commendation for the conduct of the discussion so far.
330:
17:
384:
always capitalized, it is capitalized here as well, resulting in output that uses mixed caps.
356:
892:
838:
805:
772:
740:
704:
665:
583:
have to translate and capitalize "район" into District, which produces most of the problem.
576:
544:
502:
464:
402:
308:
266:
235:
904:
372:
216:
367:(emphasis mine—Ë). Now, how do we know whether the proper noun in this particular title
361:
or multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase
881:
823:
790:
758:
731:
725:
696:
685:
649:
594:
561:
520:
482:
437:
345:
243:
922:
813:
780:
748:
715:
675:
639:
584:
551:
510:
472:
427:
335:
106:
359:, our guideline dealing with capitalization of words in article titles, states that
873:
326:
312:
455:
capitalized. It seems abundantly clear that the case we have here is anything but
90:
63:
888:
834:
801:
768:
736:
700:
661:
572:
540:
530:
498:
460:
423:
398:
388:
262:
624:
Here is a related discussion in the Russian wiki, which lasts for some 4 months
672:
Well, they cite the orthographic dictionary of the Russian Academy of Sciences
96:
363:
unless the title phrase is a proper noun that would always occur capitalized
304:
300:
779:
be titled "Nagatinsky zaton District" in English, it's just our choice.
299:
4) "Zaton" is a hydronym descriptor in Russian, meaning simultaneously
123:
131:
Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
420:"zaton" here is not a designator; it is a part of the proper name
710:
Even if the reality is ungrammatical in some Russian documents (
622:. I've just realised the scale of what we have on the plate %).
571:
for changing capitalization in ways you are suggesting. Do you?—
289:
2) Russian Knowledge (XXG) uses the fully capitalized version,
26:
178:
215:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
903:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
275:
315:should be capitalized, but then why not capitalize
274:1) Some official cites of the district, such as
730:But that's exactly the reason! You can easily
949:Human geography of Russia task force articles
889:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
835:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
802:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
769:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
737:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
701:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
662:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
573:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
541:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
534:
499:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
461:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
399:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
8:
944:Stub-Class Russia (human geography) articles
58:
30:
939:Mid-importance Stub-Class Russia articles
261:We have already discussed the ussue with
190:the human geography of Russia task force
60:
626:. They discuss the Russian naming of
529:(in a sense this term is employed in
7:
230:The result of the move request was:
112:This article is within the scope of
451:capitalized does not mean they are
291:ru:Нагатинский Затон (район Москвы)
49:It is of interest to the following
365:, even in the middle of a sentence
145:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Russia
25:
267:User talk:Ezhiki#Nagatinsky Zaton
808:); August 17, 2011; 15:26 (UTC)
775:); August 16, 2011; 19:21 (UTC)
743:); August 16, 2011; 18:13 (UTC)
707:); August 16, 2011; 17:31 (UTC)
668:); August 16, 2011; 14:04 (UTC)
547:); August 16, 2011; 19:21 (UTC)
505:); August 16, 2011; 17:31 (UTC)
467:); August 16, 2011; 14:04 (UTC)
99:
89:
62:
31:
895:); August 29, 2011; 14:05 (UTC)
841:); August 19, 2011; 20:40 (UTC)
630:there and they propose to move
579:); August 17, 2011; 15:26 (UTC)
405:); August 15, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)
278:or other official Moscow cites
165:This article has been rated as
934:Mid-importance Russia articles
636:ru:Марьина роща (район Москвы)
632:ru:Марьина Роща (район Москвы)
369:would always occur capitalized
18:Talk:Nagatinsky zaton District
1:
497:exiting state of the matter.—
333:) 15:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
244:20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
187:This article is supported by
954:WikiProject Russia articles
882:15:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
824:17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
791:15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
759:18:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
726:17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
686:17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
650:12:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
595:17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
562:15:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
521:18:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
483:17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
438:19:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
346:17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
148:Template:WikiProject Russia
970:
929:Stub-Class Russia articles
531:Proper name#Capitalization
424:Proper name#Capitalization
171:project's importance scale
535:
317:Nagatinsky Zaton District
255:Nagatinsky Zaton District
251:Nagatinsky zaton District
186:
164:
122:dedicated to coverage of
84:
57:
910:Please do not modify it.
697:Verifiability, not truth
628:Maryina roshcha District
525:I would agree it is not
222:Please do not modify it.
887:invalid? Thanks again.—
135:, or contribute to the
183:
39:This article is rated
182:
43:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
566:No, I explicitly do
375:, which states that
325:Relisting see below
126:on Knowledge (XXG).
690:It doesn't matter
418:If you agree that
184:
137:project discussion
115:WikiProject Russia
45:content assessment
334:
311:as a part of the
205:
204:
201:
200:
197:
196:
16:(Redirected from
961:
912:
819:
816:
786:
783:
754:
751:
721:
718:
681:
678:
645:
642:
590:
587:
557:
554:
538:
537:
516:
513:
478:
475:
433:
430:
341:
338:
324:
309:Nagatinsky Zaton
224:
153:
152:
149:
146:
143:
109:
104:
103:
102:
93:
86:
85:
80:
77:
66:
59:
42:
36:
35:
27:
21:
969:
968:
964:
963:
962:
960:
959:
958:
919:
918:
917:
908:
817:
814:
784:
781:
752:
749:
719:
716:
679:
676:
643:
640:
588:
585:
555:
552:
514:
511:
476:
473:
431:
428:
389:normal practice
339:
336:
220:
210:
151:Russia articles
150:
147:
144:
141:
140:
129:To participate:
105:
100:
98:
78:
75:Human geography
72:
40:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
967:
965:
957:
956:
951:
946:
941:
936:
931:
921:
920:
916:
915:
905:requested move
899:
898:
897:
896:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
653:
652:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
580:
489:
444:
416:
407:
406:
385:
349:
348:
320:
297:
294:
287:
271:
270:
249:
247:
228:
227:
217:requested move
211:
209:
208:Requested move
206:
203:
202:
199:
198:
195:
194:
185:
175:
174:
167:Mid-importance
163:
157:
156:
154:
127:
111:
110:
94:
82:
81:
79:Mid‑importance
67:
55:
54:
48:
37:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
966:
955:
952:
950:
947:
945:
942:
940:
937:
935:
932:
930:
927:
926:
924:
914:
911:
906:
901:
900:
894:
890:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
870:
867:
866:
840:
836:
831:
827:
826:
825:
822:
820:
810:
809:
807:
803:
799:
794:
793:
792:
789:
787:
777:
776:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
760:
757:
755:
745:
744:
742:
738:
733:
729:
728:
727:
724:
722:
713:
709:
708:
706:
702:
698:
693:
689:
688:
687:
684:
682:
673:
670:
669:
667:
663:
657:
656:
655:
654:
651:
648:
646:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
596:
593:
591:
581:
578:
574:
569:
565:
564:
563:
560:
558:
549:
548:
546:
542:
532:
528:
524:
523:
522:
519:
517:
507:
506:
504:
500:
495:
490:
486:
485:
484:
481:
479:
469:
468:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
440:
439:
436:
434:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
395:
390:
383:
379:
374:
370:
366:
364:
358:
354:
351:
350:
347:
344:
342:
332:
328:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
292:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
258:
256:
252:
246:
245:
241:
237:
233:
226:
223:
218:
213:
212:
207:
192:
191:
181:
177:
176:
172:
168:
162:
159:
158:
155:
138:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
116:
108:
107:Russia portal
97:
95:
92:
88:
87:
83:
76:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
34:
29:
28:
19:
909:
902:
868:
829:
797:
764:
711:
691:
619:
567:
526:
493:
456:
452:
448:
419:
393:
381:
376:
368:
362:
360:
352:
313:Moscow River
280:such as this
248:
231:
229:
221:
214:
188:
166:
133:project page
128:
113:
51:WikiProjects
536:Ногатинский
236:Vegaswikian
120:WikiProject
923:Categories
397:contrary.—
232:page moved
41:Stub-class
449:typically
305:backwater
284:like here
301:boatyard
276:this one
874:Andrewa
869:Support
712:not all
620:Comment
527:typical
457:typical
357:WP:CAPS
327:Andrewa
169:on the
732:verify
453:always
394:should
353:Oppose
263:Ezhiki
142:Russia
124:Russia
70:Russia
47:scale.
798:could
373:WP:UE
878:talk
830:fact
828:The
818:Hood
815:Grey
785:Hood
782:Grey
753:Hood
750:Grey
720:Hood
717:Grey
680:Hood
677:Grey
644:Hood
641:Grey
589:Hood
586:Grey
556:Hood
553:Grey
515:Hood
512:Grey
477:Hood
474:Grey
432:Hood
429:Grey
340:Hood
337:Grey
331:talk
303:and
240:talk
118:, a
907:.
893:yo?
891:• (
839:yo?
837:• (
806:yo?
804:• (
773:yo?
771:• (
741:yo?
739:• (
705:yo?
703:• (
692:how
666:yo?
664:• (
634:to
577:yo?
575:• (
568:not
545:yo?
543:• (
503:yo?
501:• (
465:yo?
463:• (
403:yo?
401:• (
378:on)
265:at
161:Mid
925::
880:)
765:us
699:.—
494:do
459:.—
382:is
253:→
242:)
234:.
219:.
73::
876:(
329:(
319:?
293:.
286:.
238:(
193:.
173:.
139:.
53::
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
