-
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was no consensus to move. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeysk → Yeisk —
"Yeisk" is the most common spelling. See Collins English Dictionary, Spelling Society Bulletin, New York Times, Time, Official Yeisk website, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Krasnodar Region, etc. Vermonter (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
-
Oppose. No peace for the restless, eh? :) "Yeisk" is not "the most common spelling", it's one of the possible common spellings. Both "Yeisk" and "Yeysk" are used in English (see Britannica; Encarta atlas and pretty much any other paper atlas published in English; a bunch of random google books: [1], [2]...). As per WP:RUS, when multiple common spellings exist, the one most close to the default WP:RUS convention is to be used. That one is "Yeysk", which is why the article is located where it is.
-
This conclusion, by the way, is further confirmed by the very links the nominator supplied. Collins English Dictionary lists both "Yeisk" and "Yeysk" (along with "Eisk"). The Spelling Society Bulletin doesn't even deal with the subject directly but merely illustrates a concept of "y silent" (if they used IPA, should we have moved the article to its IPA transcription?). The NY Times undoubtedly has its own style manual dealing with transliteration matters—just because they used a different romanization system does not automatically mean we should do the same, and even if it does, it should be handled by opening a guideline amendment discussion, not a move of a randomly picked article the nominator is especially partial to. The official website of the town is in Russian—what makes you think that "yeisk" in "adm.yeisk.su" is in English and not just some generic transliteration? The site of the Krasnodar Krai Chamber of Commerce is kind of similar to the NY Times situation—just because they picked one particular romanization system out of many means nothing, we should have and uphold our own rules which work for our purpose (=building and maintaining an encyclopedia), not for someone else's. If that site is to guide our practices, should we start an article about "Крыловский район" at "Kryllovsky district", too?
-
I said it many times before and I will say it again—in order to maintain an encyclopedia, a set of standards should exist (that, I hope, is not in contention?). Since so many romanization systems exist, it is only possible to agree upon one. In Wikipedia, that one is slightly modified BGN/PCGN romanization of Russian, which, I should note, was developed primarily for geographic names and was a joint effort of the agencies of two major English-speaking countries (the United States and the United Kingdom). So what seems to be the problem?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:31, September 4, 2009 (UTC)
-
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. No further edits should be made to this section.