Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Biblioteka Dlya Chteniya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
-
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
-
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply
-
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. No consensus; while there has been minimal participation, this discussion has been relisted twice and it is unlikely further relists will generate a consensus. (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
Biblioteka Dlya Chteniya → Biblioteka dlia chteniia – WP:COMMONNAME. A comparative Google Ngram Chart[1] shows this is the most common of three spellings tested, comprising 80% to 90% of usage in recent decades.[2] Separate charts show that the lowercased form is most common in all spellings[3][4][5] of this romanized Russian-language title. —Michael Z. 21:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
The total number of usages is too low to determine COMMONNAME, and we have to default to WP:RUS. Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
I have shown evidence that the proposal “is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources),” and it is the “single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources” as the policy asks.
-
Who says what is not enough? Please show your evidence.
-
Or am I just a person lacking “understanding” so you need to disrupt the “crusade” I’ve joined?[6][7][8] This will all be so much easier when you come over to the dark side and join the Ukrainian cabal. —Michael Z. 16:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Oppose, per WP:CONSISTENT & my comments at the group RM elsewhere: [9]. As an aside, I came across this discussion while looking through Category:Literary magazines published in Russia. Starting an RM here while the group RM for other publications is still ongoing does not seem like a good use of community time. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Consistent with what? Russian, Slavic, and other foreign journal titles are all over the map. WP:CONSISTENCY is the lowest in the priority WP:CRITERIAORDER of the WP:CRITERIA. Unless there is a good reason identified to prioritize it, WP:COMMONNAME would probably trump it. —Michael Z. 17:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
IMO the community can choose to zero time or plenty of time on this, since it’s a volunteer project, so I don’t understand that objection. You’re implying we mustn’t initiate tasks that K.e.coffman feels obligated to participate in but doesn’t want to.
-
Which of these in your view will require an acceptable amount of time for the community?:
-
I withdraw the batch RM and start 20 individual ones?
-
I withdraw the batch RM and start one for every single Moscow Journal/Russian-language journal/Slavic-language journal/journal?
-
Renaming articles on journals to improve their titles is always unacceptable?
-
You seem to value CONSISTENCY, so let me know how to achieve it. —Michael Z. 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
I did not mean to denigrate your contributions; I'm sorry that my post came across this way. I meant to suggest that having multiple discussions in parallel, on exactly the same topic -- spelling and capitalisation for obscure Russian-language periodicals, for which COMMONNAME may or may not exist -- is repetitive. It would be better to wait for the close on the group RM. I commented further there: [10]. My opinion on this RM remains unchanged. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Thank you.
-
As far as I can tell, there are periodicals with COMMONNAME titles that happen to correspond to WP:RUS and ones that don’t, and ones that correspond to multiple or practically all schemes (e.g., Okno). Like personal and place names, there may or may not be a most common romanization standard for all Russian-language periodicals, or for 19th-c periodicals (likely ALA-LC since that is how periodicals are catalogued), but there will certainly never be complete consistency in all relevant articles. So we will keep RMing them individually to establish stable titles.
-
I see the group RM as a convenience exercise, to do 20 similar nineteenth-century ones at once. Not some precedent-setter or institutionalization of any new guideline. Plenty of titles were renamed previously, and plenty more are likely to be renamed in the future, without regard to waiting for one (or 20) to conclude before starting another.
-
I don’t see how waiting can make the process less repetitive, only extends it. —Michael Z. 00:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
-
Relisting comment: Insufficient participation to determine consensus; relisting for a final time BilledMammal (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
