Jump to content

Talk:Gay, Orenburg Oblast

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Analysis

[edit]

I removed the following comment from the article because it lacked a source. However, it seems to me that something of the sort should be mentioned.

In English, Gay is a slang term for a homosexual person. Therefore the town is often made fun of. Most residents of Gay do not realize that meaning.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.65.156 (talk • contribs)

What do you think?--Chodorkovskiy (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this information is sourced. Agree with removing abakharev 06:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


they have the same meaning for gay in Russin 89.101.188.42 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but in russian 'gay' sounds as 'гей' ghey, while this town's called Гай which is almost equal to english 'guy'
Exactly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.210.166 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

[edit]

This should be moved to Gai, which would be a preferable transliteration. It is not pronounced as "gay" but like "guy." Similar to the Russian word for tea (Чай) which is spelled "chai" and not "chay" for obvious reasons. It is frequently spelled Gai.[1]. The official website for the city is all in Russian, but their email accounts all have "gai" in it in Roman characters (ie kmc-gai@mail etc). I am going to be bold and move it since I don't see that anyone has discussed it here and it is pretty clear why Gai is preferrable, especially given that the name rhymes with sky. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of entities without a commonly used name in English is per WP:RUS (a BGN/PCGN-based system). Articles are not moved around simply because some transliterations end up having unrelated meanings in the target language.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 15, 2017; 13:41 (UTC)
With all due respect, you keep referring to WP:RUS but it says right on the top of the page that it's piece of advice, not set of rules set in stone. Continuously insisting on WP romanization when it clearly is not the best option for an anglophones while claiming to have their best interests in mind is a bit odd.Geographical names naming convention starts with the words that common sense and occasional exceptions may be justified and I feel like this is a case.
Here are my points:
  • I don't see how potential confusion with GAI is apparently a concern but confusion with tens of other locations named (and this time actually pronounced in a familiar to an anglophone way ) Gay is not.
  • It's been pointed out above that town administration uses "gai" as part of the e-mail name, but even if this unacceptable, unsystematic option is not viable, it's not like there is no alternatives. I don't quite understand why referred wikiassay became a dura lex that doesn't take into consideration neither town administration, nor the fact that transliterating isn't exactly the only way of geographical name conversion.
  • No proper toponymyst or linguist should ever excessively and unreasonably adhere to a single method because it's insanely restrictive, especially for the purpose. Russia is quite diverse in ethnolinguistic terms which reflects in the geographical names. On the other hand it's apparently absolutely inappropriate to apply the same romanization methodology to the location names shared between related languages, so it's Gaj in Poland, Serbia, Croatia but "Gay" in Russia and Ukraine. I'm all for standardization but wouldn't it be better if it was thoughtful standardization?
  • I am convinced that this kind of inflexibility is not dictated by the anglophone interests in heart as implied. This version disseminated over Google and services like Google maps do not provide IPA transcriptions. It would have made perfect practical sense to convey the name through something a bit more accurate and practical.

I'd gladly appreciate your response on why exactly sticking to WP:RUS is absolute necessity in this case despite the aforementioned. Thanks! Aburke770 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 July 2019

[edit]
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 section.

No consensus. More than a month and two relists still see no general agreement below to rename this article. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, editors can strengthen their arguments and try again in a few months to garner consensus for this page move. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  13:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gay, Orenburg Oblast → Gaj, Orenburg Oblast Gai, Orenburg Oblast – For English speakers «Gay» is proper transliteration for «Гей», but the city called «Гай». As we see on page Scientific transliteration of Cyrillic the city must be called «Gaj» in English.

Let’s see how the name of the city is mentioned in the books:

Since the words «Gay» and «Guy» have connotations that are not related to the city and its name (which can be translated like «роща»=grove, the same as other Gaj slavic cities), therefore the page must have name «Gaj», given the presence of sources.·Carn !? 09:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Newslinger talk 14:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. — Number 57 10:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask you to take into account the following opinion, to which there was no objection on the article discussion page.·Carn !? 09:30, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RUROM; why an exception here? —  AjaxSmack  18:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per Carn & Aliceburke770 comments in the section above. 145.255.11.239 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have relisted due to the change in move target. Pinging previous contributors AjaxSmack, Wikimandia, Ezhiki and Aburke770 for reconsideration. Number 57 10:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deviation from standard transliteration without substantial evidence, and I just do not see it in cherry-picke examples above. For example, we also have Alexandrov Gay in the vicinity, a small but strategically important place with the second part having the same meaning, and there is ample coverage for "Gay" spelling. The town near Orenburg is transliterated as "Gay" in Google Maps and OSM. No such user (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand slang "cherry-picke examples" - you imply that I specifically chose search results that support my point of view and discarded others? If so, that is untrue - using the links above you can make sure that the Gai (Orenburg) variant is found more than three times more often in relation to the Gay (Orenburg) variant. As i already told below Google Maps is not a source - it uses automated transliteration. ·Carn !? 10:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quality value of Google Books search in this case is very close to zero, and it is really bold to draw a conclusion that links above you can make sure that the Gai (Orenburg) variant is found more than three times more often in relation to the Gay (Orenburg) variant. For example, if you search for Gay Orenburg, even on page 13 you will find Gay (near Orenburg) and Udokan (N.E. of Chita), or Deposits in Bashkir Republic, Chelyabinsk, Orenburg, ana Sverdlovsk Oblasts, Gay among Merl the seamstress had been carefree and gay, and the search for "Gai Orenburg" yields rather similar garbage. Such comparison is, thus, completely inconclusive. Instead, I offer a comparison for "Aleksandrov Gai" vs. "Alexandrov Gay" which, although for a different place, has the advantage of being unambiguous:
        • [3] "Aleksandrov Gai" OR "Alexandrov Gai": I count exactly 90 results as visible in book text
        • [4] "Aleksandrov Gay" OR "Alexandrov Gay": exactly 70 results, under the same criteria
      • which goes to show that both transcriptions are in equal circulation, and since neither can be demonstrated to significantly prevail, we prefer the standard one. I fail to see "unnecessary connotations" as being of any relevance here (we have Fucking, Austria but "Gay" is hardly offensive). Also, "Gai" is not any more "phonetically suitable" transcription than "Gay", as both would be normally pronounced [gej] without prior knowledge.
      • Further on, for consistency, you should propose renaming Gaysky District, Gaysky mine, Gaysky Urban Okrug, as well as everything related with Alexandrov Gay. I don't see why is it even necesary. No such user (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Site https://tophonetics.com/ gives [Gai] as british transcription of "Gai". Also, Gai, Styria interwiki is ru:Гай (Австрия). It is closest to ALA-LC romanization for Russian.
        • I would oppose that "Gai Orenburg" yields rather similar garbage., there is "Gai Orenburg" inception in book «Europa Publications Limited (2001). The Territories of the Russian Federation. Vol. 2. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 1857430956.».·Carn !? 12:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are numerous ways to transliterate Russian, all good and useful, some more appropriate in certain situations and less in others. "Gay", "Gaj", "Gai", and "Gaĭ" are all equally valid. But just because some books are using variants which differ from Wikipedia Russian romanization standards is not a good reason to abandon standards. The very reason to have standards is that we don't have to waste time on discussing which romanization variant happens to be most common for any given obscure Russian place name. Obscure places cannot have a "widely accepted name" simply for the reason of being obscure. Gay's coverage is nowhere near Moscow's or St. Petersburg's; I think we can all agree on that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 8, 2019; 20:12 (UTC)
    • Your words about "Obscure places" are not only insulting, but they are in no way connected with the rules. WP:WIAN: "The Google Scholar and Google Books search engines can provide helpful results" The acceptation of the word in the sources must be assessed by the prevalence of the use of the word in the sources. Google itself is not a valid source - it does not translate names, it does automatic transliteration, the quality of which is not better than the one that offers the essay WP:RUROM, to which, for some ridiculous accident, there is a link from the rule WP:RUS, where it says: "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
    • We have already found out above that the "Gay" and "Gaj" are not phonetically suitable in this case. (Gaï would be ideal variant phonetically, but you can't type it easily on keyboard). Both Aleksandrov-Gay and Aleksandrov Gai - on page 8 gives us ~71 relevant books, so this don't give us any ground to choose proper transliteration. And since many sources would thoughtlessly use Google variant such a ratio is a reason to think. ·Carn !? 09:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the very fact that there are different romanisations in multiple sources suggests we should not deviate from WP:RUROM. I'm not convinced the sources above are anything more than passing mentions. The obscurity of the place, as Ezhiki notes, means there is not substantial coverage showing a common name. Fenix down (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Reading through discussion I realized opposers didn’t name one single valid reason why sticking with Gay is somehow necessary. Putting aside that some might consider gay/gaj/whatever other version is being considered equally “widely accepted” (which I personally disagree with as nobody else in this thread except for Carn provided extensive list of “proofs”, so to say), gay has at the very least two major drawbacks: 1) it’ll be read as [gei] by absolute majority of people hence 2) it’ll bear unnecessary connotations of homosexuals. If Wikipedia’s main and only purple was gags then it’d be the perfect option. I refuse to understand how people manage to fixate on one and only option that actually HAS these significant drawbacks while choosing between options that don’t. It seems like instead of at least trying to work on transliteration that would be most definitely better than gay for the sheer reason it doesn’t have the aforementioned cons, some just seem to protect “gay” version by all and any means, for no real reason at all. Wiki community doesn’t seize to disappoint me. 64.25.27.224 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what on earth has that got to do with anything? On what guideline or policy could that possibly be based upon? Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Summary. There is no guideline or policy consider this issue directly. We have a choice of arguments - to maintain historically established uniformity (i.e. just to follow traditions, simply because we followed them before) or to choose an option for phonetic reasons, and, possibly, without unnecessary connotations.·Carn !? 09:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - so you don't see how suggesting we move an article to avoid "unnecessary connotations" might be deemed offensive to a lot of people and a completely unacceptable reason? WP:RUROM might not be an official guideline, but it carries a lot of weight as the meas by which we ensure consistency in Romanisation. given that sources have been presented for multiple spellings, there s no clear reason to change to one or the other. Fenix down (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually 64.25.27.224 has quite the point. I couldn't care more about hate culture in Russia but you can't possibly be serious about the "insulting" part! I'll kindly provide an analogy. Let's say we have a town [nəʊˈgæmə] that has been romanized as "Nohomo". People responsible for such romanization resist any change for almost a decade claiming that there's no reason to step away from recommendations (!) that were created in the first place to suit English speakers (!!) while given romanization clearly not only does horrible job at this but also provides needless (homophobic in this case) connotations. It shouldn't really matter what kind of needless connotation romanization creates as technically encyclopedia shouldn't take sides and cherry pick which ones are acceptable and which are not. If there is an alternative that is more suitable in every regard - it should be used. Playing this "insult" card in this case is plain ridiculous as it plays against you. Aburke770 (talk) 16:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that avoiding to talk about the fact that such connotation may offend the people of Gai (Russia has very homophobic culture) and using as argument that such renaming might offend LGBT-community isn't valid way.
  • Any word is bad if it's written one way with transliteration, but gives different pronunciation. ·Carn !? 12:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ISO 9 - International standard for Romanization of Cyrillic - no WP:OR as in WP:RUROM
Date Region Name Descriptive name
1995-06-01 France NF ISO 9:1995-06-01 [1][2] Information et documentation - Translittération des caractères cyrilliques en caractères latins - Langues slaves et non slaves.
1995-09-29 Sweden SS-ISO 9 [3] -
1997 Romania SR ISO 9:1997 [4] Informare şi documentare. Transliterarea caracterelor chirilice în caractere latine. Limbi slave şi neslave
1997-12-11 Croatia HRN ISO 9:1997 [5] Informacije i dokumentacija -- Transliteracija ćiriličnih u latinične znakove za slavenske i neslavenske jezike (ISO 9:1995)
2000 Poland PN-ISO 9:2000 [6] Informacja i dokumentacja. Transliteracja znaków cyrylickich na znaki łacińskie — Języki słowiańskie i niesłowiańskie
2002 Lithuania LST ISO 9:2002 Informacija ir dokumentai. Kirilicos rašmenų transliteravimas lotyniškais rašmenimis. Slavų ir ne slavų kalbos
2002-07-01 Russia GOST 7.79-2000 System A Система стандартов по информации, библиотечному и издательскому делу. Правила транслитерации кирилловского письма латинским алфавитом
2002-10 Czechia ČSN ISO 9 (010185)[7] Informace a dokumentace - Transliterace cyrilice do latinky - slovanské a neslovanské jazyky
2005-03-01 Italy UNI ISO 9:2005[8] Informazione e documentazione - Traslitterazione dei caratteri cirillici in caratteri latini - Linguaggi slavi e non slavi
2005-11-01 Slovenia SIST ISO 9:2005[9] Informatika in dokumentacija – Transliteracija ciriličnih znakov v latinične znake – Slovanski in neslovanski jeziki
2011 Estonia EVS-ISO 9:2011[10] Informatsioon ja dokumentatsioon. Kirillitsa translitereerimine ladina keelde. Slaavi ja mitte-slaavi keeled
2013 GCC GSO ISO 9:2013 [11]

77.11.38.186 (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only small problem with ISO-9 is that nobody uses it. Are you seriously suggesting that we should transliterate ⟨Щ⟩ as ⟨Ŝ⟩ or ⟨Ю⟩ as ⟨Û⟩? Besides, this should require a RfC at WT:NCGN or WP:VP, not unilaterally applied to a single article. No such user (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Serbo-Croatian, it may seem unusual, but the system is very logical. If the search engine understands that when the user writes "S" it may mean "Ŝ", then nothing prevents it from being used on Wikipedia.·Carn !? 14:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.boutique.afnor.org/NEL5DetailNormeEnLigne.aspx?&CLE_ART=FA027018
  2. ^ https://www.din.de/en/wdc-beuth:din21:12351958
  3. ^ https://www.sis.se/en/produkter/standardization/information-sciences-publishing/writing-and-transliteration/ssiso9/
  4. ^ https://magazin.asro.ro/standarde/ics-ierarhic/1/01.140.10/106592874
  5. ^ http://31.45.242.218/HZN/Todb.nsf/wFrameset2?OpenFrameSet&Frame=Down&Src=%2FHZN%2FTodb.nsf%2F66011c0bda2bd4dfc1256cf300764c2d%2Fc1256c8f003565d5c1256d29003d9651%3FOpenDocument%26AutoFramed
  6. ^ http://sklep.pkn.pl/pn-iso-9-2000p.html
  7. ^ http://www.technicke-normy-csn.cz/010185-csn-iso-9_4_65539.html
  8. ^ http://store.uni.com/catalogo/index.php/uni-iso-9-2005.html
  9. ^ http://ecommerce.sist.si/catalog/project.aspx?id=71645861-60ea-4c82-857f-4a028c776b40
  10. ^ https://www.evs.ee/products/evs-iso-9-2011
  11. ^ https://www.gso.org.sa/store/bsmd/standards/GSO:642823/GSO%20ISO%209:2013?lang=en#
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay,_Orenburg_Oblast&oldid=1202229919"