8 June 2024
News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation publishes its Form 990 for fiscal year 2022-2023 Technology report: New Page Patrol receives a much-needed software upgrade Deletion report: The lore of Kalloor In the media: National cable networks get in on the action arguing about what the first sentence of a Wikipedia article ought to say News from the WMF: Progress on the plan — how the Wikimedia Foundation advanced on its Annual Plan goals during the first half of fiscal year 2023-2024 Opinion: Public response to the editors of Settler Colonial Studies Recent research: ChatGPT did not kill Wikipedia, but might have reduced its growth Featured content: We didn't start the wiki Essay: No queerphobia Special report: RetractionBot is back to life! Traffic report: Chimps, Eurovision, and the return of the Baby Reindeer Comix: The Wikipediholic Family Humour: Wikipedia rattled by sophisticated cyberattack of schoolboy typing "balls" in infobox Concept: Palimpsestuous
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

	Toolbox	Autoblock finder Countitis facilitatis Edit summary usage stats Image usage List of blocked IPs & usernames Prefix Index Link Search Unwatched pages
	Reference	Administrators' how-to guide Administrators' reading list Current surveys Dealing with vandalism Manual of style Policies and guidelines Vandalism in progress

Archived talk: 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

If you have the time, would love to hear your input here. Rarelibra (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's being put on a vote?! It's like titling an article about a Russian river "Reka Foo", even though "reka" is simply a qualifier of a geographical feature (a river) and is not a part of the proper name (Foo). I assume "Lac de la" is merely a descriptive qualifier as well?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem comes from German where "see" is hydronym part (Foosee) not like Lake Foo in two words. The same in Russian: Lake Vodlozero or Lake Vodl(Vodlo?) Or Vodlozero (with no "lake") - is it correct "River Reka Moskva"? But "River Moskva-reka"?Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe these analogies are correct. The situation with Gruyère is not the same.

1. Москва-река has an established English names ("Moskva River" or "Moscow River"). The name is listed in major English dictionaries and encyclopedias ([1], [2]). "Moskva-reka", "Moskva-reka River", and numerous other variations are used on occasion, but are not standard. Gruyère, on the other hand, is not something a major dictionary would list in any form; it's just to damn small and obscure. "Small and obscure", however, is precisely where Wikipedia conventions should be kicking in, and as of know they say "use English".
2. "Vodlozero" is a proper Russian name, which happens to include the word "ozero" as its part. In Russian, the qualifier is not omitted when these lakes are being described (consider, for example, the following excerpt from Karelia's law on municipal districts (emphasis mine): граница идёт от точки 2 до т. 3 по... линии озера Укшозеро, ...от т. 6 до т.7 по акватории озера Кончозеро..., от т. 8 до т. 9 по... линии озера Падозеро..., and so on and on and on. "Озеро" here is a part of the proper name, and so should not be omitted (so the Wikipedia articles should be titles "Lake Ukshozero", "Lake Konchozero", and "Lake Padozero". Now, I don't know if this is the same case with German "Foosee", but then the survey is not about the name in German, but about the name in French (I wouldn't even be participating in a similar survey about a German lake name because I don't know German).

At any rate, you'd be better off voicing your opinion on the survey page. The whole point of that survey is to collect as many opinions as possible. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been there? I have... but that's beyond the point. Transbaikalia Krai, then we have Transbaikal, then we have loads of out of date maps, Krais of Russia etc. You're the expert here, so sort it all out. --Kuban Cossack 22:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, been there... But that's beyond the point indeed. I moved the article back. Please do not confuse the established names of geographic and historical regions and the name of a federal subject that is only a few days old and by definition cannot have an "established name" in English. Please refer to the place name exceptions section of WP:RUS for details. We'll need more hard evidence regarding English usage before we move this article to any title other than the current one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ezhiki! I just don't like Zabaykalsky Krai... Sounds like Забэйкальский :). We have Baikal, so why Zabaykalsky? KNewman (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is per WP:RUS place names exception clause. "Baikal" is the established English name of the lake, "Baykal" is the BGN/PCGN romanization of the lake's name. As for the krai, here, obviously, no established English name exists, so romanization is used. There are just no good reasons to deviate from the practice, although I do hope that we'll be able to move the article to a variation of "Transbaikal" once the name gets established by the English dictionaries and encyclopedias. Just give it a few years to get there.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just created IPA chart for Russian, I figure that since you're a native speaker you might be interested in it. Maybe I bungled something. Maybe you can contribute to it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on IPA, remember? I can merely read it, but I did look at the article from the native speaker's viewpoint and made a few corrections along the way. If anything is missing from the table, I wouldn't have noticed it due to my limited knowledge of the subject. The corrections I made consist of mostly fixing minor formatting flaws and replacing "е" with "ё" where needed (also, in Russian, a stress mark over "ё" is normally omitted, because this letter is pretty much always stressed).

A few other things I noticed:

1. I have no clue what "герь" or "юбда" are (perhaps some dialectal words?), so I replaced them with "гербарий" и "юла".
2. In the word "сухой" the second syllable is stressed, not the first. I replaced the example with "пуля".
3. I would never pronounce the word "зверь" with "з" palatalized—in fact, I need to make a conscious effort to pronounce this word that way. I think you mentioned once that such pronunciation is more common in Moscow (where they talk weird anyway :)), but perhaps a less ambiguous example would be more appropriate?
4. I am also not so sure about "н" in "женщина" being a good example for plain "н". I find myself occasionally pronouncing this word with a palatalized "н" for no apparent reason—not sure if it's a phenomenon particular to the variation of Russian I speak or if it's a common occurence. "Блиндаж" is one replacement I can think of.

Hope this helps! Let me know if there is anything else I can do.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ezhiki! I'm one of the main developers behind Template:Infobox Former Country, which is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries. I have noticed that you've put a semi-protection on the template to provide it with some measure of protection as it is a potential high-risk template. I would agree that it would be a fair assessment, and protecting it may not be a bad idea. However, I find that I'm no longer able to update or edit the template, and that rather impedes on my ability to perform necessary maintenance and work on development.

What would be the best sollution here? Having the protection removed or applying for admin status? Despite the template being widely used it is still very much in a development phase and there is alot of work to that still needs to be done. Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I must admit this one puzzled me at first:) I only semi-protected the template, so only anonymous and recently established accounts wouldn't be able to work on it. Obviously, you don't fall under either category.

The problem turned out to be with Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Protection, which has cascading protection option turned on. That page transcludes (and protects) Hoysala Empire, which in turn uses (and protects) the "former country" infobox. It looks that Hoysala Empire will be featured on March 8, so you should be able to resume working on the template after that. In other words, you've got the wrong guy :)

Please let me know if anything is still unclear; I'd be happy to provide further help if you need it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! The protection might be warranted, but as a developer I'm finding the situation becoming untenable to the point that I feel a responsibility for the working order of the template, but that might be brought out of my control by secondary events, which not only restricts, but actually prevents me from performing these duties. Secondary events may also in some cases prompt for action where the template needs to be modified in a way where a non-complex solution would not suffice, like the #ifexist limit issue that popped up in early December 2007, where action were needed in just a number of days, and I was basically the only one around who were able and perhaps more importantly had the working knowledge of the template to fix it.

The template as it stands today is quite complex, and in some ways actually too complex to efficiently maintain and update with new features. This is probably the main reason why further development is necessary and the ultimate goal of this is to increase the transparency and accessibility of the template. A part of this will include using more subtemplates and thus in some ways actually increasing complexity to achieve the overall goals.

Basically what it boils down to is that it may be difficult to unworkable, to actually achieve any of this with the restrictions that are imposed by protection and not being able to work with the template, even if this may be the effect of intermittent secondary events. I haven't actively sought to become an admin, but as things has progressed I think it would be quite difficult to maintain the infobox and its related templates, which are at the core of the project, if they are to have a level of edit protection related to them. Would you endorse a nomination for adminship? Cheers, -- Domino theory (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, you are a decent editor who could use admin tools. I wouldn't, however, be comfortable nominating you myself because I just don't know you that well. On the other hand, if someone who does know you well nominates you and if no serious issues surface during the nomination, I'd be more than happy to support it. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have several reasons for inclusion of both links. One is that Russian Wikipedia uses the st-petersburg.ru but that is not important enough. Mainly I think that cities usually have one website which includes both information about the city and the administrative information but St. Petersburg has two websites. I honestly believe readers are looking for st-petersburg.ru, as the administration website eng.gov.spb.ru/ is very baldly describing the city (website was last time updated in 2005 it seems). On the other hand st-petersburg.ru is a modern dynamic presentation which also includes updated news. I am not afraid that infobox links will become carbon copies of the "External links" section as we shouldn't include anything else but these two websites, and I am sure it will not go over to the infoboxes of other cities as this seems to be unique case. If the english version of gov.spb.ru had at least a bit more information and at least some dynamic news content it would have been fine but it seems that St. Petersburg is using st-petersburg.ru to reach to the English language readers. Regards --Avala (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, have it your way. I have, however, formatted the links to show full URLs, as it is so done in other infoboxes of this type. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are attempts to move articles about towns in the Republic of Karelia in Russia to Finnish names and I thought you might be interested in this. Please comment/vote at Talk:Suoyarvi and Talk:Lakhdenpokhya. Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Almost've missed them :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very frivolous note: I saw your sig, and "Hérissonovich" made me smile. Thank you! SaundersW (talk) 09:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am having difficulty with User:Docu and his insistence upon attempts to get me in trouble. If you look here you will see that I was addressing line item comments correctly, as per WTP. User Docu did this revision which lumped my comments into some block summation which didn't make sense. He then tried to warn me about "changing his comments" (which is untrue, I was putting in comments address his line items). When I changed them back I put in "User Docu" to address this issue. But somehow, he is pushing it and got User:Sandstein involved with an attempt to say that I am in the wrong. User Sandstein, an admin, is now issuing "final warnings" to me. I cannot see how I am in the wrong here, as I was address his comments and he signs his comments incorrectly. If anything, he was in the wrong by putting my comments in a block summation.

Can you assist me here in clarification? Thank you. Rarelibra (talk) 13:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for his comment at User talk:Sandstein#More.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He (Sandstein) is still confused, and is still threatening me. See his comments. I think he is not understanding that those comments were removed after I restored my own comments back to the line item comments as allowed per guidelines. Do we need to involve more with Sandstein for him to understand not to threaten me? Rarelibra (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted a comment. I think you'd be better off if in similar situations you start providing diffs to illustrate your point instead of describing it with your own words. I myself interpreted the situation incorrectly (albeit in a totally different light!) when I made some of my comments earlier today. Having diffs to show the whole picture helps a great deal. Please review my latest comment to Sandstein and let me know if I gave the correct description of the situation. You also have my explicit permission to edit my comments in that thread if anything is wrong or incomplete :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ezhiki! Could you please create a template (like the GSE or RBD templates) for the Энциклопедия "Москва" (издание было выпущено к 850-летию города в 1997 г.)? I've used it to write an article about the Moscow Print Yard and would like to mention it as a source. Thanx a lot! KNewman (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem creating this template for you, but is there any reason why you wouldn't want to simply add this encyclopedia as a reference (i.e., using the <ref></ref> tags)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you post an example on my talk page? I'm a lamer when it comes to HTML programming (or whatever they call it :)). KNewman (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What if I translated the whole article? Then I don't need a footnote :).

If you translated the whole article word-for-word, you committed a copyright infringement :) If you narrated it in your own words, however, then you can simply add your source to the "References" section—you don't need to use any special templates or mark-up; just add the source you used. Templates like {{GSE}} are useful when they are used often; if you only need to cite your source a few times it's easier just to spell it out in words. Let me know if you still want the template, though—I'm not trying to weasel out of helping you :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, in order to source something, you need to enclose the source citation within <ref name="Refname">…</ref> tags (where "…" is your reference), and then add {{Reflist}} to the "References" section of the article (if there is one there already, then you don't need another one). "Refname" is the name of the reference, you only need to specify if you are planning to use the same reference more than once on the same page, and it can be anything you want. Here is an example:

Moscow is a very big city, and polar bears roam its streets in winter<ref name="MosEncycl">''Moscow Encyclopedia'', 850th Anniversary edition, p. 123. Moscow, 1997.</ref>

followed by:

==References== {{Reflist}}

which produces:

Moscow is a very big city, and polar bears roam its streets in winter.^[1]

What if I translated the whole article? Then I don't need a footnote :).

References

1. ^ Moscow Encyclopedia, 850th Anniversary edition, p. 123. Moscow, 1997.

Basically, you write up your standard reference (as you would in an academic paper) within the ref tags.

You might also want to read WP:CITE for a more detailed explanation. Hope this helps!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, already reverted. I thought you'd deleted some relevant information. My bad. Rsazevedo ^msg 20:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figured that much. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "support" instead of "oppose" at WP:MoS, or am I misunderstanding? People opposed to spaced em-dashes are all voting "Support". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's really screwy! Here is what the proposal says:

I now propose that we change the guidelines to favour only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes: spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes, consistently in any given article.

Since I am not in favor of having "only two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes" (because I am in favor of only one kind—unspaced), I voted "oppose".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you're not on the side of the opposition, then. The opposition wants 3 kinds: spaced and unspaced em-dashes, and spaced en-dashes. Do you really want to get rid of all en-dashes on Wikipedia? I haven't heard anyone else suggest that, ever. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I most certainly don't want that :) However, by the looks of it, I can't vote "support", because that wouldn't be what I want either (once again, I want unspaced em-dashes and unspaced en-dashes). Any tips? Perhaps it's not too late to split the proposal into several and sort existing votes into the corresponding buckets?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm really not following you. You're right about the proposal, it says: "two kinds of sentence-punctuating dashes: spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes". You also want two kinds: "unspaced em-dashes and unspaced en-dashes". You're saying you do not support ... is that because you want people to be able to mix up both different kinds in the same article? I think all the supporters could live with that, if you explain what you mean. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but same here—I'm still not sure what so confusing about my reasoning? The proposal calls for spaced en-dashes—and that's the part I don't support (I want them unspaced). Since the whole proposal is a logical conjunction, disagreement with any part of it would result in an automatic "oppose". Perhaps I'd better withdraw my vote altogether, because by the looks of it I ain't gonna get what I want no matter how I vote. Which reminds me of something :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I get it, but I don't think the WT:MoS folks will (without more explanation after your vote). I don't see any need for you to withdraw your vote, but of course, as everywhere on Wikipedia votes per se don't count, it's the reason or support behind the vote. I have never seen a proposal to never allow spaces around en-dashes; all of the major style guides recommend it. That doesn't mean we have to, but it will look "professional" if you give your reason along with your vote. (Almost) no one will disrespect a valid reason, even if it's not a popular vote ... in fact, some folks (like me) really like seeing reasoned opposition, it forces everyone to be clear instead of just allowing them to say "I think this is the way it's done". - Dan Dank55 (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting consistency was my only reasoning. I realize that spaced ndashes are recommended by the style guides, but I could never force myself to see something like "1911 – 1925" as "professional". Anyway, I'll tweak my vote to "support", because, as you correctly pointed out, this would be closer to my preferences. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, by the way!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any time, thanks for clarifying your position. Having more participants in WP:MoS discussions really does significantly improve the outcomes. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I checked the zh-interwiki link at the Gorki disambiguation page. zh:高尔基 is a disambiguation page with 3 entries: Maxim Gorky, Gorky (Nizhny Novgorod) and Camillo Golgi (due to phonetic constraints in the Chinese language, words that are pronounced differently in English may be transliterated into the same characters). Even though "Gorki" can also be transliterated to the three characters, the links in the Gorki page have no corresponding links in the Chinese Wikipedia page. IMO, the link should be at the Gorky page, and I had moved it there. Cheers, Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What have I done?} 16:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks again!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a disambiguation disrupted in such a way in good faith (which I do understand is the case now). Thanks for the link to the MOS, it is rather suprising to me; in any case I believe that the fact that Polish wikipedia has articles on those villages should be treated as confirming their notability and the right to "red-linkedness" in the meantime.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was as surprised as the next guy when I was pointed out that clause a while ago. I was even more surprised when I found out how many people it took for that clause to come into being. I do understand the intents behind the revision, and the only reason why I did not complain (apart from the lack of time) was because set index articles provided means to achieve pretty much the same result as dabs with red links had allowed for before the above MOSDAB revision. It is still highly annoying, though, especially considering how no one bothered to verify just how many pages would be harmed by overzealous dab-cleaners hell-bent on sticking to the letter of the guideline at the expense of everything else. Oh well... I'm going to leave the Górki situation to you (there's not much I could do beyond bringing the page to the attention of Polish editors anyway); I trust you'll take good care of it from now on. Just don't let it get merged into Gorki :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a modification here. As to the letter of the law triumphing over the spirit, I have seen this happen elsewhere, alwways with bad results. Remember, though: WP:IAR is still a valid policy! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to explain it to the "cleaners". This is probably the tenth or so time I run into a situation like this, and every time it takes days and kilobytes of explanations until the opponents finally "get it" or label me as a nasty case and leave.

Anyway, thanks for submitting the modification proposal. Hopefully it'll get somewhere.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen посоветовал передать

Не знаю или заинтересован, но нашел качественное описание здесь http://mion.isu.ru/pub/rasp/

Всего хорошего--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Спасибо, но поскольку я человек сугубо мирный, вопросы территориального деления занимают меня только в гражданском аспекте :) Однако, ссылка может оказаться интересной участнику Buckshot06, который специализируется как раз по вопросам военных округов. Я передам.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Ezhiki. However though I can read enough Russian to put this comment under the right heading, that's only because I now recognise specific military terms - I cannot understand whole webpages. However if Mrg3105 wants to do it, as he can read & speak Russian, I'll gladly assist with finishing touches if he wishes - I'll tell him that too. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhiki, если вы не возражаете, мне было бы приятнее перейти на русский :) Первое, что я бы хотел узнать - это ваше личное мнение. Не как администратора Википедии, а как русского человека, отлично владеющего английским языком. Вот представьте себя жителем Ейска, ейчанином. Вас лично не коробила бы транслитерация "yeychanin"? Меня лично слово "Yeysk" просто вымораживает. Иначе как недоразумением я его назвать не могу. Неужели с учетом всех перечисленных доводов (не хочу лишний раз повторяться) вы не находите нелогичность использования слова "Yeysk"? Как администратор вы можете оставаться на своих "рубежах", пожалуйста, но мне интересно ваше мнение. Далее, (уже обращаюсь как к администратору), я не говорил, что "Yeisk" превращается в брэнд! Обратите внимание, что говоря о брэнде, название города я привел в кириллице. Тем не менее, вопрос об официальном англоязычном варианте названия города вскоре встанет очень актуальным. И я хочу сделать всё возможное, чтобы не только сообщество англоязычной Википедии приняло "Yeisk" вместо ущербного "Yeysk", но и чтобы ведущие зарубежные бюро и издательства, выпускающие атласы и энциклопедии, перешли к этому названию. Не скрою, что у меня есть идея, и я собирался выйти на "The Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use" и "U.S. Board on Geographic Names" с предложением рассмотреть этот вопрос. Но в каком-то смысле своей стойкостью вы оптимизма у меня поубавили :) Если так сложно доказать казалось бы очевидные вещи сообществу открытой энциклопедии, то что уж говорить об учёных мужах Оксфорда и Кембриджа?.. Тем не менее, я считаю, что здесь они допустили ошибку. Не специально, не по своей вине. Просто они бездумно применили "шаблон", "кальку", который заранее придумали. Но из любого правила всегда бывают исключения. Ейск является им. Не потому, что он какой-то особенный. А просто потому, что он единственный во всем мире начинает называться с сочетания букв "Ей"... --Yeisker (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Пожалуйста, могу и по-русски, мне не трудно. Начну, правда, не со своей личной точки зрения, а с описания одной очень распространённой ошибки, которую совершают многие из тех, кто здесь впервые (или новичок). Вообще, со списком этих ошибок и недоразумений можно ознакомиться вот тут, но в применении к нашей ситуации применимы вот эти: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" (see also WP:NOR) и "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". На практике это означает то, что цель Википедии — это сбор и организация существующих знаний, а не продвижение новых концепций и идей и исправление ошибок (see also WP:V—"the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth). Новые идеи, какие бы замечательные они ни были, Википедией описаны не будут пока они не приобретут определённую степень значимости в реальном мире. Очень хорошо это иллюстрирует следующий пример — если бы Википедия существовала на заре зарождения телевидения, статьи о телевидении в ней (согласно существующим правилам) не появилось бы до тех пор, пока оно не вышло бы из экспериментальной фазы и стало фактом жизни.

Разумеется, всё вышесказанное относится в первую очередь к контенту, а не к правилам, регулирующим функционирование Википедии. Что касается собственно правил, то они устанавливаются сообществом в результате дискуссий и предложений, и их вполне возможно изменить, если они плохо работают в каких-либо ситуациях. Касательно WP:RUS, принятие его в форме минимизирующей правила основанные на личных пристрастиях и убеждениях участников было очень важной целью, нитью проходившей через все дискуссии. И разве это не логично? Если правило основано на системе, успешно использующейся в реальной жизни, направленной на ту же аудиторию, и не имеющей серьёзных недостатков, то зачем изобретать велосипед заново? Если у правил нет теоретической базы, то сегодня придёте вы и начнёте настаивать на том, что "Ейск" должен писаться как "Yeisk", завтра придёт ваш земляк и начнёт настаивать что нет, "Eisk" — это более правильно, а послезавтра ввалится поклонник ГОСТа, и скажет, что поскольку российское правительство официально использует ГОСТ, то "Jejsk" — это единственно правильное написание, а всё остальное ересь чистой воды. И все, между прочим, будут по-своему правы. Это, кстати, не теоретические рассуждения — до того как WP:RUS был принят в текущей форме с такими ситуациями приходилось встречаться чуть ли не каждый месяц (почитайте, например, дискуссии на WP:CYR, хотя это и далеко не вся картина). Всем угодить нельзя никогда, но стандартизация (любая!) по-крайней мере позволяет избежать ненужной мартышкиной работы в виде проверок и перепроверок всех возможных написаний каждого наименования. И это не праздные заботы — учитывая объём Википедии любое уменьшение объёмов такой работы приносит вполне ощутимые результаты, особенно в "российском секторе" английской Википедии, поскольку число участников в нём по очевидным причинам довольно ограниченно, при том что количество энциклопедического материала просто огромно.

Что касается моего личного мнения, то я считаю, что английская энциклопедия должна использовать английские же конвенции. Мы здесь всё-таки гости, пусть почётные и уважаемые, но не местные, и насаждать наши личные взгляды и пристрастия было бы просто верхом неуважения. Какие именно конвенции использовать мне, честно говоря, глубоко фиолетово, единственное, что имеет значение, это то, что они должны работать для целей написания энциклопедии и быть понятны/знакомы англоязычной аудитории. Если бы этой аудитории подошёл тот же ГОСТ, то мы бы сейчас спорили о том, почему статья про Ейск должна именоваться "Jejsk" :) Важно не забывать, что в английской Википедии то, как выглядит транслитерированное русское слово, важно для англичан, а не для русских. Если бы это была Википедия на английском языке, направленная на русскоязычную аудиторию (в целях изучения языка, например), то и аргументы в пользу выбора системы транслитерации были бы совсем другими. Я ответил на ваши вопросы? Если нет, с удовольствием продолжу эту дискуссию :)

Что касается петиции в BGN/PCGN, то почему бы и нет? Если вам вдруг удастся их (пере)убедить, и они пересмотрят правила, то это будет означать только то, что был найден более эффективный способ донести русские названия до англоговорящей аудитории. В этом случае и нам будет не грех пересмотреть наше руководство по романизации. Ввели же они интерпункт для "unusual Russian character sequences". Не забывайте только, что правила они тоже составляли для целей стандартизации, а не для максимально корректной передачи написания/произношения, поэтому минимизация количества исключений для них (как и для нас) будет, скорее всего, иметь более высокий приоритет.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]